NEW WRIT

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Ogmore in the room of Sir Raymond Powell, deceased.—[Ms Armstrong.]

Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

English Heritage

David Crausby: What recent meetings she has had with English Heritage about giving children free access to its sites.

Tessa Jowell: The Government's statement on the historic environment, "A Force for Our Future", which I launched on 13 December last year, made clear our wish to encourage the widest possible access to the country's heritage. We proposed in the statement to consider at the earliest opportunity—and in consultation with the relevant key organisations, which include English Heritage—how the principle of free access for children, which has been such an enormous success in our national museums and galleries, might be extended to the historic environment.

David Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. After the enormous success of free access to museums, does she agree that completely free admission for children to sites such as Stonehenge will not only have a similar effect on numbers, but, most importantly, encourage more visits with the family?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue links our twin objectives of opening access and promoting excellence. There are families throughout the country who have seen for the first time the treasures that we share as a nation, and it is our aim to extend that opportunity to our historic environment.

Regional Theatre (Leicester)

Jim Marshall: What steps the Government are taking to support regional theatre in Leicester.

Kim Howells: This is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. The Arts Council last year announced an additional £25 million funding for theatre by 2003–04—an increase of 56 per cent. on current levels, taking the total budget for theatre to £70 million. Over the next two financial years, funding for the Haymarket theatre in Leicester will increase from £992,000 today to £1.36 million in 2003–04—an increase of 37 per cent.

Jim Marshall: Perhaps my hon. Friend will realise that, with the events that have unfolded in Leicester in the past days, there are other questions that I should like to address to the Government, but I do not think that he is the relevant Minister to answer them. I thank him for his reply, but is he aware that the replacement theatre for the Haymarket, which is due to be built in the St. George's area of the city over the next five years, is to be the centrepiece of a cultural centre in Leicester? Will he give an indication as to the Arts Council's contribution towards the cost of that new theatre? Will he give an undertaking to impress upon the Arts Council the need to ensure funding beyond 2005, so that the cultural centre can be fully developed? Is he also aware of the county council's decision to reduce its annual grant to the theatre by £100,000 per annum—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long.

Kim Howells: I do not know what the Arts Council's projected contribution to the new theatre is likely to be, but I shall impress on it the many points that my hon. Friend made.

David Tredinnick: Will the Minister bear in mind that Leicester is not the only place in Leicestershire that has a theatre? The Concordia theatre in Hinckley has been hugely successful, and is supported by private subscriptions. Will he look favourably on its applications and have a word with the funding organisations? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has had to call in or write to all the distribution agencies because they have failed to distribute billions of pounds of lottery money? He should deal with that urgently because we believe that we are losing out in the midlands.

Kim Howells: I congratulate the theatre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on surviving and flourishing through private subscription, of which I am in favour because it is an important way to fund the arts. I hope that the theatre continues to flourish. However, I am reliably informed that the premise of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not true. There has been no crisis meeting, but we need to monitor matters closely.

Andy Reed: While we are plugging our theatres, will the Minister acknowledge the valuable work of Loughborough town hall in promoting the excellent pantomime that I saw only a few weeks ago? People in Loughborough travel to the Haymarket in Leicester; there is a pantomime there at the moment. Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who was unfortunately unable to finish his question, that Leicestershire county council should also make a contribution to theatres in the county? Will he join me in condemning it for cutting £100,000 of funding for the future?

Kim Howells: It is important that the sort of gesture that the Government have made in providing £25 million of investment is echoed throughout the country. Investment in theatre must be good for many reasons. It not only continues one of the great creative traditions of this country but deals with many issues in troubled environments. Theatre does that in a way that nothing else can. We should support it at all levels.

Tim Yeo: Is not theatre in Leicester exactly the sort of good cause that should receive help from lottery funds? Will the Minister confirm that £3.5 billion of lottery funds is designed for good causes but not yet spent? Will he confirm that the figure is increasing by £30 million every week and that it exceeds the total of the Department's spending for the next three years? When will the Secretary of State sack some of those responsible for that bureaucratic bungling?

Kim Howells: I do not believe that bureaucratic bungling has occurred. Any unspent money is an effect of the success of the lottery and the hugely imaginative way in which the money has been distributed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will succeed where others have perhaps not succeeded so well in ensuring that the money is spent and that the underspend is halved by this time next year.

Commonwealth Games

Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on the assistance the Government are giving to the preparations for Manchester's hosting of the Commonwealth games.

Richard Caborn: The Government announced on 2 July 2001 £30 million in support for the games, in addition to the £10.5 million they had already given towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies. Together with Sport England and Manchester city council's funding, that has removed the obstacles to Manchester's delivering a successful games. The strategy is now paying dividends. Planning and preparations are proceeding apace and a real and growing appetite for the games is developing across the country.
	Almost 400,000 tickets have already been sold. The games volunteer programme has also been heavily oversubscribed in quality and quantity. We are on course for a good Commonwealth games. That is underlined by the appearance of new sponsors. The latest was Interbrew, which signed last week.

Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he agrees that the success of the games is vital not only to Manchester but to the north-west region. Will he take steps to ensure that the whole region benefits from the presence of the Commonwealth games by encouraging people who come to Manchester to visit other parts of the north-west? What support will he give the tourism board and local authorities to publicise the attractions of the north-west and draw them to the attention of those visiting the Commonwealth games?

Richard Caborn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A marketing group has already been set up and consists of the major agencies in the north-west—the development agency, the North-West tourist board and the games committee. I am sure that it will examine the issues that my hon. Friend raised. The Queen's jubilee baton relay will pass through Warrington and the whole north-west as it goes round the country. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall refer to the group that has been established to consider such issues.

James Gray: I hope that private investors will invest in the Commonwealth games; they did when Manchester last bid for the games. However, why should I be encouraged by the examples of the dome, Wembley or Picketts Lock? Why should I believe that the Government would make less of a foul-up of the Commonwealth games than of those three projects?

Richard Caborn: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the number of sponsors who are backing the Commonwealth games. If he speaks to some of them, he will find enthusiasm and confidence that the games will be successful and credible, and the biggest multi-sporting event this year.

Paul Goggins: There is a growing sense of enthusiasm for the games in Manchester, illustrated by the fact that 10,000 people have now offered their services as volunteers to help to look after the athletes and make sure that the games run smoothly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in July and August in Manchester, we shall have not only a sparkling international event, but one that is rooted in the pride of local people?

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The figure that he has just given to the House illustrates that the quality and the quantity of volunteers are there now. Even the British media are now getting behind the Commonwealth games; the latest reports have been very encouraging. The only thing that we have to do now is to get the official Opposition on the side of the games, and we shall have a full house. [Interruption.] I meant the whole of the official Opposition. Their Front-Bench Members are already behind the games, but some of their hon. Friends on the Back Benches have not been as supportive as they ought to be. I am sure that we shall see them all wearing the badge at the next question time, so that we can show our support for the Commonwealth games in Manchester, which will be a great success.

Pete Wishart: The Minister will be aware that, as well as the proposed bid for the Commonwealth games, Scotland is considering bidding for the European championships in 2008. If that bid goes ahead, will his Department support it? What assistance, if any, has he offered in relation to it so far?

Richard Caborn: The UK Sports Council is discussing that issue. Like all such issues, it will come to the sports cabinet, where all the devolved Administrations and UK Sport get together. The next meeting is in four or five weeks' time.

Athletics

Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on Government support for athletics in the United Kingdom.

Richard Caborn: UK Athletics is working with Sport England, UK Sport and my Department to create a development plan for the sport, to ensure that resources are provided to get more people involved, to improve the identification and development of talented athletes and to provide better support for our top performers.

Crispin Blunt: What is the Minister's estimate of the forgone economic benefits of the cancelled bid for the 2005 athletics championships? What was the cost of the Sheffield diversion, which the International Amateur Athletics Federation regarded as laughable?

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Member looks at the Carter report on Picketts Lock, and at the reports produced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, he will get a good estimate of the cost involved. If one takes into account the cost of the infrastructure and of the stadium, it was about £230 million. Even with that investment, we could not guarantee the type of facilities that had been requested by the IAAF. It is unfortunate that the IAAF did not come and visit the Sheffield site which was offered instead. At the moment, UK Sport and Sport England are investing about £40 million there, as part of the English institute for sport, which will probably give athletics one of the best centres in Europe. Unfortunately, the IAAF turned down the proposal regarding the Sheffield site without even going to look at it.
	Regarding the economic benefit, the answer is clear. We did not believe that a £250 million investment from the sports portfolio would have been right, and that is why we made our decision. This is all laid out in Patrick Carter's report.

Kevin Brennan: While acknowledging the importance of putting money into grass-roots athletics, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important, in the long term, to think about having a venue in which to hold major international athletics events? Will he and the Secretary of State reconsider the option of having a multi-use stadium with retractable seating, along the lines of the Stade de France?

Richard Caborn: So far as the national stadium is concerned, my hon. Friend will know that the Football Association is dealing with that matter, and will be reporting back to the Government and Sport England. In terms of having another national stadium for athletics, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for a performance and innovation unit report, which we believe will be started in the not-too-distant future, to look at the question of sports facilities in the round. My hon. Friend knows that such projects are extremely expensive, and we ought to have all parties on board before we embark on any major venture, be it a national stadium, Picketts Lock, the Commonwealth games or anything else. That is the right way forward, and I hope that, when the PIU report comes out, it will be debated here and that we shall find a saner way of moving forward on these major investments.

Nick Harvey: When Picketts Lock was cancelled, the Secretary of State said that she would want the money not being spent on it to be diverted to grass-roots athletics. What help can be given to that vital body of volunteers who go to athletics matches around the country as marshals, stewards and judges, usually at their own expense, which runs to uniforms and even starting pistols? What influence can the Minister bring to bear on Sport England to divert some of that money to those vital volunteers?

Richard Caborn: We are discussing the legacy for athletics with UK Athletics and the hon. Gentleman is right: we hope that that plan will ensure that there is investment at the grass roots. Only yesterday, I had discussions with officials at the north of England Amateur Athletic Association indoor athletics. They are excited about the extra investment in athletics and no doubt they will discuss with UK Athletics a proper investment package that will benefit the grass roots and the officials to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as well as the elite athletes. There is a buzz in British athletics, because this Government are prepared to invest in the whole structure.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend has referred to the new stadium at Manchester. Could there be a renegotiation so that it might be used for athletics?

Richard Caborn: Unfortunately, that could not be, as the agreement is between Manchester City football club and Manchester city council. If we could turn the clock back a number of years, we would probably approach those matters differently. That applies to all parties because mistakes have been made across the board, which is why the performance and innovation unit study is important. If we are to bid confidently for major international events, we must ensure that all parties are signed up before going ahead.

John Greenway: Will Ministers make clear to the new members whom they approve for appointment to the Wembley National Stadium board Sport England's recommendation that the revised Wembley plans are for a stadium capable of hosting athletics? Does he agree with that advice? Given the revelation that unspent lottery funds still exceed £3.5 billion and in the light of what he has said this afternoon, can he assure all our leading athletes of the continued funding of the world-class performance programme?

Richard Caborn: On the first point, we have no responsibility for the Wembley company. That is a matter for the Football Association, as has been made clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. We will not have blurring at the edges and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her statement that it is for the FA to decide who is put on the board. On the £3.4 billion of undistributed lottery funds, my right hon. Friend is meeting officials of all the major distributors and we intend to start bringing that down to a more manageable figure. Those moneys are held against commitments that have already been made. With the National Audit Office and the Treasury, we are trying to find a better solution and we hope that the money can be spent on the good causes, which is where it ought to be going.

CowParade 2002

Chris Pond: What discussions she has had with the organisers of CowParade 2002.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend deserves a big pat on the back for asking that question. [Laughter.] I shall meet the organisers of CowParade at the earliest opportunity. CowParade will give artists of all ages and abilities the chance to submit designs for decorating life-sized fibreglass cows, the best of which, I am told, will be displayed around London streets.

Chris Pond: As long as the Minister does not accuse me of cows for questions. He is aware that more than 800 artists have already submitted their designs for those full-sized fibreglass works of art, which will soon decorate the streets of London and Gravesend. Is he also aware that the project has won the enthusiastic support of the British Tourist Authority and organisations such as London Underground, the national gallery and Marks and Spencer and that they realise that similar events in Chicago and New York were a major boost to the tourism economy? Is he further aware that, as the project could raise several hundred thousand pounds for the charity Childline, I shall continue to lobby for his support until the cows come home?

Kim Howells: I welcome the good news that charities will benefit from this event. There is no question about that. I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's promise of lobbying until the cows come home. I assure him that I shall keep the matter udder review.

BBC

Richard Bacon: What plans the Government have to change the statutory framework for the BBC relating to the provision of digital services.

Tessa Jowell: The provision of new BBC services is governed by the BBC charter and agreement. Any such services require the approval of the Secretary of State. That arrangement will continue under the proposed new regulatory regime, but the Secretary of State, in considering public service applications from the BBC, will seek formal advice on the market impact from the Office of Communications.

Richard Bacon: Given the potential impact of the BBC's new digital services on the rest of the broadcasting industry, would not it make more sense for approval for BBC applications to rest with Ofcom, as it is for others players in the industry? The Secretary of State will be aware that many commentators think that that would make more sense. Is she minded to introduce such a change when the main Bill is published?

Tessa Jowell: No, I am not minded to introduce such a change when the main Bill is published. New BBC services are important in giving licence payers value for money, and they act as an incentive to drive the take-up of digital television. In making judgments about those new services, it is important to ensure that proposals are distinctive and do not gratuitously undermine the competition and the growth in the commercial market that we want.
	Towards the end of last year, the BBC submitted an application for a range of new services. I approved the new BBC4, the mixed genre arts channel, and two new children's channels because they were evidently distinctive and different from what was available in the commercial market. I rejected its application to establish a young people's channel, because I was not persuaded that it was sufficiently distinctive. It is important to maintain competition and to secure value for the licence payer. In order to oversee value for the licence payer, the Secretary of State should approve new services with advice on the competition effect.

Anne Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that most people who get digital television receive it through a platform where they pay for other services. One of the strengths of the BBC's digital output is that it is free to view, and it is important that it remains so. Reception via satellite platforms or cable is good, but the main platform for people who want free-to-view digital television is the aerial, and reception via the aerial is still poor and the picture crackles quite a bit. What plans have the Government or the industry to ensure that when people want to access digital television, they do not have to sign up to a package and pay for a load of other channels, and that they can get the BBC free-to-view channels on their own?

Tessa Jowell: The issues that my hon. Friend raises are taken very seriously by the industry, the Department and the broadcasters. It is important that the attractiveness of DTV is improved by securing greater consistency of signal and better quality of picture. As part of the digital action plan, which brings together the Government, broadcasters and the industry, we are testing the limit to which the signal can be increased to improve reception. My hon. Friend makes the important point that people will decide to switch to digital if they can improve their choice of viewing and if the picture quality and services that they can receive are improved. There is still a long way to go, but we have set out a clear framework of Government policy, in partnership with industry.

David Heath: Has not the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) raised an important point of principle? The BBC is making a substantial investment in digital services—up to £84 million in the first year. That money comes from each and every licence payer in the country. Is it not incumbent on both the Government and the BBC to ensure that all licence payers—irrespective of where they live, and including those in rural areas—gain the benefit of the investment for which they are paying?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, that is important. Government policy—I do not think there is any great controversy about this—is described as "platform-neutral", because we think that people should be able to choose the platforms from which they obtain their digital signals. The BBC's investment in new digital services is important in encouraging people to go digital, and giving them a reason to do so.

Chris Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning the importance of ensuring that digital services from the BBC, and from other broadcasters for that matter, are available to all; but how can we ensure in the regulation that free, open, non-discriminatory access to audiences is guaranteed for broadcasters? If that is not done, a powerful gateway will be created through which it will be difficult for broadcasters and audiences to make their way.
	My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that every sixth-former at Porth junior school claimed this morning to have a personal computer at home, and to enjoy using BBC online digital services.

Tessa Jowell: As I have said, it is important to promote take-up of digital services, and to maximise choice of free-to-air channels. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) could maintain his interest in the question that he asked.
	It is important for free-to-air channels to have non-discriminatory access to platforms. As two of my hon. Friends have said, that will ensure that viewers are given maximum choice of free services, and need not subscribe to pay-TV services that they do not want.

Tim Yeo: Now that an affordable set-top box enabling analogue televisions to receive digital services should soon be available, will the Secretary of State stop dithering and announce that the switchover to digital will take place on a single date, 1 January 2006?

Tessa Jowell: I welcomed the announcement at the end of last week of new technology that will deal with one of the obstacles to the switchover. We have made it absolutely clear, however, that the process needs to be possible in terms of technology, desirable in terms of programme choice, and what people actually want. So far, one in three households has access to digital services. A job of persuasion and conversion must be done, but it is not something that Government can do; people must decide that they want this for their own and their families' viewing entertainment. That is why our policy remains that, subject to three rather than five tests, the switchover should take place between 2006 and 2010. That is still our intention.

Independent Television Commission

Michael Fabricant: If she will make a statement on the recent work of the Independent Television Commission.

Kim Howells: The Independent Television Commission, as an independent regulator, continues to fulfil its regulatory duties of licensing and monitoring commercial television services under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in praising the ITC's work, and hoping that it will play an active role in the formation of Ofcom?
	The Minister knows as well as I do that, at times of economic uncertainty, the first thing to happen is a fall in advertising revenues. He will also know that ITV's net advertising receipts have fallen by about 12 per cent. this year, and that, if ITV is to maintain and improve the quality of its programming, the ITC must be given freedom to allow Carlton and Granada to combine. What consideration has he given to that?

Kim Howells: We have given every consideration to that. I have discussed the matter with the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. We should not tackle this matter piecemeal—it should be part of a properly structured communications Bill that we put before the House—but I understand what he is saying. The ITC does a very good job in all respects. Some special difficulties have hit the independent television companies, especially over the past 12 months. However, they made some very large profits in the 24 months or so that preceded that. They are pretty tough companies which have been in the business a long time and know that there are some downs as well as a lot of ups.

Julie Kirkbride: Why is it the policy of the Department so far to insist that the ITV companies offer their programmes to the satellite sector, without insisting on a must-carry policy for the satellite sector, which clearly creates difficulties in bargaining power between the two sectors? Can the Minister explain the Department's policy and whether he has a mind to change it?

Kim Howells: I know that the Conservative party has become very hands on and statist in the past week or so, but it is not my business to tell the ITV companies, still less Sky, what the nature of essentially commercial contracts between those two organisations should be.

Tourism

Mark Hoban: If she will make a statement on the impact of the events of 11 September on tourism.

Tessa Jowell: The terrorist attacks of 11 September have had a damaging impact on many tourism businesses, particularly businesses in London that rely on high- spending north American visitors, but some parts of the country have reported a very good autumn. There are signs that we are now in the very early stages of a recovery.

Mark Hoban: Given that those problems come hard on the heels of the crisis in the tourism sector following foot and mouth disease, is it not time for the English Tourism Council to be given the permanent marketing role that its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have?

Tessa Jowell: Certainly, we want more marketing of Britain, and more professional marketing of Britain. We are working closely with the British Tourist Authority. On Wednesday, we will join it at the launch of its marketing campaign targeted at the seven top markets, north American and European. There is a joint initiative between my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to promote tourism in the countryside, and there is the initiative of the London tourism action group to promote London as a tourism destination.
	We have asked the English Tourism Council to look at diverting resources in the short term to marketing England. That builds on the excellent work that is already being done by the regional tourism authorities. In relation to the key part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are discussing with the English Tourism Council whether a marketing role will be given to it in the longer run.

Jack Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in respect of damage to tourism, few counties were more adversely affected than Cumbria following the atrocities in the United States of America and the disaster of foot and mouth disease? Is she aware that 2002 is the international year of mountains: a celebration of mountains, their ecology and environment and the communities that have to work and earn their livings in mountainous areas? Is she aware that the Cumbrian mountain festival will be launched in spring this year—a serious attempt to bring a resurgence of support for tourism in all its aspects in the Lake District national park and surrounding areas in Cumbria? Will she ask her officials to engage with those planning the festival to ensure that her Department maximises its support for those important and exciting proposals for Cumbria, and that, in addition to what I am sure will be words of encouragement, we get some tangible financial support too?

Tessa Jowell: We will certainly ensure that the Department provides all possible support to the international year of mountains. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, himself a distinguished mountaineer, will be present at the launch.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's advocacy for Cumbria in what have been terribly difficult times for the tourism and farming industries there. We will provide all possible help to get tourists back to one of the most beautiful parts of our country. As 2002 is not only the year of mountains but the Queen's golden jubilee, we hope that that will be a tremendous draw for visitors from north America and other parts of the world who have simply been too afraid to travel in the intervening months.

Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State will be aware that tourism is vital to my constituency, the location of Ashdown forest and the homes of A. A. Milne, Conan Doyle and, nearby, Rudyard Kipling. Is she also aware that the recovery of tourism is seriously hampered by the fact that we have no Sunday rail service, so people trying to come down for the weekend cannot get home until Monday morning? Will she ask her officials to deal directly with Go Via, to encourage it to offer a Sunday service, making her worthy words about tourism become reality?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is meeting the relevant Ministers from other Departments to ensure that investment and policy work in concert towards the objective of promoting tourism, advertising what Britain has to offer and ensuring that one of the most successful sectors of our economy thrives after what has been a very difficult 18 months. The short answer is yes: those discussions will take place with other Departments to ensure that we work as one Government to promote tourism.

Claire Ward: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the financial packages that the Chancellor made available in the aftermath of both foot and mouth and 11 September to hotels and businesses in the rural economy and those who rely on tourism? Has she compared the figures against the increased number of flights abroad from certain airports such as Stansted? How do we ensure that more people remain in this country and benefit from our tourist attractions rather than going abroad?

Tessa Jowell: The investment that the Chancellor made in increasing the British Tourist Authority's marketing budget has been successful in bringing back some tourists, especially from western Europe. There is still, however, a major problem with north America. Our aim must be to encourage more people to come here from abroad and more people to stay here for their holidays, not out of patriotism alone but because there are so many good places to see, and to ensure that the tourism on offer is of consistently high quality. The Government have a part to play in that.
	The industry is well aware of the aspects that need reform. It is important to get rid of outdated practices and raise standards. We are working with the industry on that. That will be the long haul, but we must also seize the short-term opportunities, such as the international year of mountains and the Queen's golden jubilee, in a very focused campaign to get north American tourists back to Britain.

Anne McIntosh: I remind the House of my previous declarations.
	The Secretary of State's reply makes it clear that she accepts that there are higher costs, in particular for security, for passengers coming into this country, but is she aware that the air passenger fund set up in 1975 has now run out of money and that the Civil Aviation Authority is anxious, and wants primary legislation, to introduce a levy to be charged to passengers to insure against the collapse of any travel companies, package holiday firms, tour operators or charter companies, and to enable passengers stranded abroad to be brought home? Will she stop the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions dithering by putting pressure on him to legislate before the peak summer holiday period, to enable those passengers to be brought home?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady's question is one for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—but of course, in the spirit of the commitment that I gave earlier, we are concerned about the impact of a range of Government policies on tourism. Where there is clearly a detrimental impact on tourism, we shall raise that with the relevant Secretary of State.

Glenda Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the excellent work done by the London tourism council and the whole of the tourism industry within London, much more still needs to be done to link up with other tourist authorities throughout the United Kingdom, not only so that visitors are attracted to London, but so that London is genuinely perceived as the gateway to the whole United Kingdom?

Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; that is a weakness that the industry itself now recognises. Under the leadership of the CBI, the Tourism Alliance, which brings together many of the key industry players, has now been established. Fragmentation, leading to low levels of skill, poor value for money and lack of adequate data, has been a fundamental weakness in the tourism industry. If anything beneficial is to come from the awful circumstances created for that industry by foot and mouth and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, it will be the focus on modernisation and building the capacity to be a profitable tourism industry sustainable in the long term, with modern technology and modern working practices. That is what will bring the visitors back and keep them here.

Gaming Review

Nick Gibb: If she will make a statement on the gaming review.

Richard Caborn: We published the report of the independent gambling review body—the Budd report—in July last year. We are now considering all the comments that we have received on it; there have been about 2,200, the vast majority of which have come from the voluntary clubs about jackpot and gaming machines. We are now considering those responses, and we will make an announcement in the near future.

Nick Gibb: Is the Minister aware that the gaming review's recommendation that local authorities should ensure that gambling is the primary purpose of premises licensed for gambling, would effectively wipe out amusement parks in small seaside towns such as Littlehampton and Bognor? Will he overrule that recommendation?

Richard Caborn: We have not given any decisions on any of the recommendations, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I have met a number of representatives from the seaside resorts and have listened to them carefully. We have also received their written submissions. We shall give those due consideration, and will announce our conclusions when we make the full announcement on the Budd report.

Festivals (Bristol)

Doug Naysmith: What plans she has to visit festivals taking place in Bristol this year.

Kim Howells: I would be happy to consider invitations to visit Bristol in the near future. My hon. Friend knows that I recently attended the "Brief Encounters" film festival in that fine city—and that I was subsequently serenaded into another great cultural event by those invaluable chroniclers of contemporary west of England life, the Wurzels.

Doug Naysmith: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply; I am not sure whether the Wurzels see things exactly as he does, but it has all calmed down now. My hon. Friend knows that he will receive a warm welcome in Bristol when he comes. Having seen a list of the cultural events that will take place in Bristol this year, does he agree that it provides a good platform for our bid to become European city of culture in 2008?

Kim Howells: The list of 18 festivals in Bristol is mighty, and I look forward to seeing the "Animated Encounters" short film festival, which promises to be good. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can of course make no statement that would jeopardise the bid of any city to be the European city of culture. As Cardiff is within sight of Bristol, we would be entering dangerous territory there. That said, Bristol has many high-quality festivals. It can certainly make a serious bid, and I am sure that it will.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Internet Voting

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the commission's plans for internet voting.

Alan Beith: The Electoral Commission is an independent body and the remit of the Speaker's Committee is to approve its estimates and five-year plan, not to take decisions that fall within the commission's statutory responsibilities. I understand from the chairman, however, that the commission is co-funding research to evaluate the feasibility of introducing electronic voting, including internet voting. The commission will also evaluate electronic voting pilot schemes for use at local elections in May. Any such schemes will be laid before Parliament.

Ben Chapman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that online voting is commensurate with modern lifestyles and that its use might enfranchise those, especially the young, who have felt disengaged from the process? How does he intend the pilots to be evaluated and measured so that appropriate lessons may be learned?

Alan Beith: As I have said, that falls to the Electoral Commission, not the Speaker's Committee. In order properly to evaluate the schemes, the commission intends not to co-pilot them. It will be involved in evaluation, and it is clear that a lot of technical and other issues will be raised. The commission has not yet formed a view on whether electronic voting schemes of various schemes will work well; that is the purpose of the pilots.

Patrick McLoughlin: At present, it is difficult to vote. One must go to a polling station or receive a vote through the postal system. Even for the latter, verification by an independent person is required to show that the right person has voted. What verification will there be in electronic systems?

Alan Beith: That is precisely the type of issue that the commission is considering in order to establish whether electronic voting can make it easier to vote while still giving those who take part in the electoral process the assurance that the process is safe and sound. When the pilots are laid before Parliament, hon. Members will be able to judge them for themselves.

Harry Barnes: It is even more difficult to vote by internet or any other method if a person is not on the electoral register. If the commission is to consider voting through the internet, will it consider whether it might be possible to get more people on to the register through the internet?

Alan Beith: That is certainly the type of issue that the commission is considering.

Postal Voting

Robert Syms: What review the Commission plans to carry out of the operation of postal voting in general elections.

Alan Beith: The commission stated in its statutory report on the 2001 general election that it intended to assess the impact of extending the availability of postal voting, including any implications for electoral fraud. I understand from the chairman of the commission that that review is expected to report by the autumn. A statistical paper providing data, constituency by constituency, on postal voting at the general election was published last week. A copy has been placed in the Library.

Robert Syms: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that encouraging response. We were all happy that it was easier to obtain postal votes at the general election, but there was some concern, because the date was so late, that many people did not receive their ballots in time to return them. There was also concern about fraud in the system. When the right hon. Gentleman reviews the budget for the commission, will he give that area more consideration?

Alan Beith: I am sure that the commission will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement, particularly as regards its budget. The Speaker's Committee will certainly take that into account. I know from experience that the issue of late ballots is a difficult one, although I was surprised, while preparing for today's Questions, to read evidence that some postal votes were posted to Australia and returned in time for the poll.

Peter Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although the decision to extend postal voting last year was a very welcome simplification of the system, it was announced very late and many of the applications were submitted very late for the councils to deal with and the returning officers to send out the forms? Will the fact that people can apply for postal votes now be made much clearer on the registration forms? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are watching very carefully to ensure that the abuses that have taken place in the past with very much increased postal voting are not repeated in the future?

Alan Beith: I well remember the problem of last-minute arrangements and the commission is consulting acting returning officers on many of the things that happened at the last general election, including the extent and nature of any fraud that took place, so those issues are well under consideration.

Simon Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new, additional responsibilities. Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), first, will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues consider telling people all the options available, with all the dates, on the paperwork that is put through their doors when an election is called, so that they can leave it as late as they wish to use their votes? Secondly, will he consider having a pilot scheme which involves going back to the people—possibly in urban and rural constituencies won by each party—who did not vote at the last general election to ask them why they did not vote and what would have made them more likely to do so?

Alan Beith: Establishing why people, particularly young people, did not vote at previous elections and what their attitude to voting is certainly an issue that the commission takes seriously. Going back to those who were recorded as not having voted would raise some rather difficult questions, as my hon. Friend would understand. His suggestion about what information can be made available when the information is first sent out and the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) are useful, and I shall certainly pass them on to the commission.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Repairs

Anne McIntosh: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received on the reduction of VAT on church repairs through a grants equivalent.

Stuart Bell: I have not received any particular representations following the successful launch of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that English Heritage is planning to reduce its grant by the amount that the recipient of those grants receives from the Treasury? Is he not alarmed, as I am, by that development? Will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that that unwelcome development does not continue and become an accepted practice? Will he continue to make representations stating that we should seek to reduce VAT for church repairs under the directive?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and may I say how pleased I was to see her on the Front Bench a few moments ago? As she knows, the scheme provides a grant that equates to part of the VAT paid, rather than being a reduction in the VAT rate. She mentions the on-going discussions in the European Union, and the European directive on a formal reduction in the rate. Those discussions are continuing. I will ensure that the Treasury is made aware that English Heritage is withdrawing or reducing some of its grant.

Andy Reed: I welcome the scheme. Any way that we can reduce Church costs in that way is welcome. Will my hon. Friend estimate what sort of expenditure is likely to occur in the foreseeable future? Is there any evidence that repair work has been held back, awaiting that decision, so that there may well be a quick rush in the first year or two? If so, is the scheme likely to be cash-limited, in which case a number of applications may well be turned down because there is a closed list?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no real indication that schemes to repair churches have been held back or withdrawn, given the fact that, of course, the VAT directive is some way off and is being modified, but the total cost of repair work in the Church of England amounts to £120 million and the VAT on the listed building work is about £10 million, so bringing the Government scheme into action as quickly as possible will avoid the problem to which my hon. Friend refers and help us to get a move on with church repairs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentions—the VAT on repairs cost the Church £10 million—will he or the Church Commissioners strongly press the Treasury to obtain a derogation from the sixth directive on VAT on the basis that a reduced or zero rate of VAT should be applied to the repair of community buildings?

Stuart Bell: Many of those representations have already been made in the European Union, but, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), will know, they did not receive an echo back. That is why the directive is being considered with a view to its being overhauled and brought into line more with the hon. Gentleman's request.

Volcanic Eruptions (Democratic Republic of Congo)

Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	Last Thursday at about 10 o'clock in the morning, the Nyiragongo volcano near Goma in the DRC erupted. That evening the quantity and rate of lava flow from the volcano increased, and further fissures opened up in Goma itself. Much of the town was engulfed and destroyed.
	Early reports suggest that about 100 people have lost their lives, but the death toll may rise further. Hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee their homes. Many crossed to Rwanda in the east to seek shelter in and around the town of Gisenyi. Others fled west in the direction of Sake inside the DRC. Some who were trapped in the town and under threat from the heat and from noxious gasses have been helped to safety.
	The volcano continues to erupt and the whole area, including Gisenyi, is subject to continuing earth tremors. There are also concerns that the gasses disturbed—especially deep in Lake Kivu—could threaten the lives of civilians who remain in or return to the area.
	In spite of these dangers, many of those displaced are now moving back into Goma itself. Those affected naturally want to find out the extent of the destruction of their homes and property and to see what the chances of returning may be. It also appears that many would rather be in the DRC than seek refuge in Rwanda. Irrespective of where people choose to locate themselves, there is an urgent need for water and sanitation, health care, shelter and food. Cholera is a particularly serious threat.
	The response of the international community and of the Rwandan Government has been as follows. The Rwandan Government have already provided assistance to civilians trapped by the lava flows. The United Nations has redeployed resources from the DRC and staff from Geneva to lead the relief operation. MONUC, the United Nations peacekeeping operation in DRC, has made its logistical capacity available. The International Committee of the Red Cross and major international non- governmental organisations based in the area are already working to help those affected. The major relief agencies have a presence and a capacity on both sides of the Rwanda-DRC border, and will be able to offer support where it is most needed, although the challenge is and will remain considerable.
	Appeals have been made to donors for help. The Department for International Development has set aside £2 million to help fund the relief operation through Oxfam and Merlin, a UK emergency medical response agency. The British Red Cross will also respond to the UN appeal. Oxfam has been asked by the UN to take on the role of providing water and sanitation, and a flight with equipment and supplies left RAF Manston on Saturday evening. This was paid for by DFID funding. Merlin will provide health care to those affected. The organisation has considerable experience in the DRC and a large team of Congolese professionals already present on the ground. The Red Cross will continue to deliver emergency help in Goma and Gisenyi.
	As the situation changes, DFID will continue to provide support to agencies already on the ground and we stand ready to consider further help as necessary. Earlier this year, the International Committee of the Red Cross received £5.5 million from DFID for its programme in the DRC, including a significant element for humanitarian assistance.
	The two countries involved have already suffered a great deal from the conflict that has affected the region. This human catastrophe is another burden for the people of Goma to bear and I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathies to all who have been affected and who have lost loved ones.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the Minister for faxing a copy of the statement to my office. That was extremely helpful.
	I express our condolences to the many families who have lost loved ones in this natural disaster and welcome the £2 million announced in immediate aid to the victims of the volcano. There is a question, however, about the flow of refugees. If they are now returning to Goma, as reports suggest, will the aid be in the right place at the right time?
	The return of people to Goma makes us ask about the state of the refugee camps in Rwanda and people's experiences of them. Can the Minister comment on the number of people who have arrived in refugee camps and on the standards within them? As many people have decided to return home, what is being done to provide aid to them in their homes, if they still have them, given the lack of water or electricity in Goma? We commend Oxfam on being asked by the United Nations to help with water sanitisation, but is the Minister satisfied that adequate measures are in hand to improve water sanitisation, given that both water treatment plants in Goma have been destroyed?
	The redeployment of the peacekeeping staff, to whom the Minister referred, to logistical support prompts the question of how best to uphold the rule of law. Can he confirm the reports of Congolese troops taking part in the looting? Does he agree that the compounded disaster of the petrol station shows that more measures need to be taken to protect the population who have decided to remain in Goma?
	Lessons learned from previous humanitarian intervention in these areas show the need for better co-ordination between donors and the numerous agencies, especially in the areas of civil conflict. It was not totally clear from the statement who is responsible for co-ordinating that and what role, if any, the Government of the DRC will have, given that that is a rebel- controlled area.
	The volcanic eruption was, to a certain extent, predictable. Is the new technology for measuring long episodes of seismic activity feasible in the long term, to improve our response to such disasters? Volcanologists warn of the very real danger of carbon dioxide poisoning where the pockets of gas are released by lava flows into the lakes. Has any measurement of that risk taken place? Finally, it is reported that the Foreign Secretary will visit the country later this week. What role will he have in the humanitarian effort?
	The region around Goma has suffered so many manmade problems that this natural disaster must be particularly hard to bear. An effective humanitarian response can at least prevent the preventable aspects of the disaster, and we should refine our model for working in volcanic regions from the experiences of those who work to mitigate the impact today.

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Lady for her response and I shall try to deal with her points.
	I understand that long-term monitoring has been undertaken on the volcano and that a team was due in the area just after the time when it exploded. It is obviously difficult to predict volcanic eruptions with great certainty. However, a team of vulcanologists, a geochemist and a seismologist is in the area. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the concern about the rapid release of CO 2 and methane gas and the threat that that poses for the population, especially those at the lowest levels along the side of Lake Kivu.
	On the conditions of camps in Rwanda, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Government of Rwanda announced their intention to establish a number of camps to accommodate those who at that stage had moved into Rwanda in the direction of Gisenyi. Given the substantial movement of people that appears to be taking place back into Goma, clearly the overwhelming priority is to ensure that relief and support and provided in the places where people now find themselves.
	I share the hon. Lady's concern about the need to do more on the provision of water. According to an initial assessment in the latest situation report by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the water intake stations on Lake Kivu and for the Goma power plant were undamaged by the eruption. However, the distribution systems, pipes and wires have suffered extensive damage, and more will have to be done to provide for people's water needs, wherever they happen to be.
	I am afraid that I cannot confirm the reports about those who may have been involved in looting, but clearly there is concern about security. In the midst of such a catastrophe one would be concerned about security anyway, but the history of conflict in the region adds to that concern. It is important that all who have been party to that conflict pay attention to the need to support those who are suffering in the current emergency.
	Overall co-ordination of the relief effort is the responsibility of the UN assistant emergency co-ordinator, who arrived in Kigali the afternoon of 20 January. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the fact that the Government of the DRC are not in control of the area; it falls under the control of the Rassemblement Congolais Democratique, or RCD. It was questionable whether there was an authority in the town before the catastrophe, and that is much more difficult to determine now, but every effort is being made to ensure that those who can contribute to the relief effort are working together as effectively as possible. As I said in my statement, however, the situation is extremely difficult, and there is a large scale of need to be responded to.
	As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Foreign Secretary is visiting the region. I am certain that he will take the opportunity to discuss with all those who are assisting in the relief effort ways in which we might be able to help further to relieve the suffering of those who have been affected.

Tam Dalyell: As the leader of, I think, the only Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Zaire, as it then was, may I ask a rather pointed question? Is the money going to the agencies? It was the experience of that delegation that many of the provincial governors whom we met were people of great quality, but heaven help us if the money is simply sent to Kinshasa or elsewhere. Can the Minister confirm that it will go straight where it is needed?
	Secondly, will the Minister pursue the question of the pipes? The carbon situation of Lake Kivu is obviously crucial, and we can do something about it. Do we have the expertise, which is available in this country, to make an assessment of what is happening to the Kivu gases, particularly CO 2 ?
	It may be inappropriate, but may I ask a third question? At the Edinburgh international book festival I chaired the meeting for Jane Goodall. The area affected by the catastrophe is one with important world-class wildlife, including not only chimpanzees but much other fauna. Human casualties obviously take precedence, but what is being done, if anything, about the environment?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that aid is going directly to the agencies, because it is most important that we should assist those on the ground. In Goma, Merlin and Médecins sans Frontières already have two clinics operating. One was opened at the weekend, when there were about 6,000 people waiting for assistance. The Save the Children Fund is already distributing non-food relief. The World Food Programme has delivered two trucks of food today and plans more—six trucks are on their way. That is an incomplete account of what is happening because information is coming through slowly, but it demonstrates that work is already under way to help people in Goma. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is most important to send aid direct to the agencies.
	Secondly, further assessment will need to be undertaken of the geology and chemistry of the interaction between the lava flows, the lake, CO 2 and the other issues to which my hon. Friend referred. I will consider his suggestion that we investigate whether any expertise available in the UK might be of assistance. I can tell him that the results of a Lake Kivu water sample are expected later today.
	Finally, my hon. Friend is right to raise the impact on wildlife. There is concern about the broader impact of the volcanic flow on the countryside surrounding Goma as well as the disruption in Goma itself. Estimates suggest that 30 to 40 per cent. of the town has been destroyed. However, we need to deal with things in order of priority; I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the first priority must be to help people who are currently living in the most difficult circumstances.

Jenny Tonge: I too welcome the statement and thank the Minister for allowing a copy of it to be made available to me. I join the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in sending sympathy to the people of that area; I know a little bit about it, having been to Rwanda. Considering the civil war that has been raging in the area for many years, I cannot think of a greater hell than the one that those people are experiencing. It is difficult to believe what they must be going through and what they have gone through.
	I congratulate the Minister and the Department on their incredibly swift response. Before I had even put pen to paper myself, the Government seemed to be making a response. I congratulate them on that and on making supplies available to non-governmental organisations to get to Rwanda, apparently within about 48 hours of the news breaking. I particularly welcome the emphasis on water purification, because cholera is a danger in that situation.
	With people fleeing from Gisenyi back into Goma, how will the aid flow? Will our Government provide more money to the rebel-held territory of Goma and the NGOs operating there to help the refugees coming back, or will we rely on some sort of transfer from Rwanda? I am unclear about how that aid will flow. Will the Minister give a little more detail about disaster preparedness, which we are all keen to talk about in the House? Does he feel that we were prepared for this disaster, and what effect will the whole thing have on the course of the civil war in that area?
	Finally, as a veteran of the disaster in Montserrat, following the eruption of the Soufriere volcano and the lessons learned then, could the Minister comment on the scientists' ability to detect what will happen in future in that region? Many hundreds of thousands of people in the area are in danger from further eruptions, ground splits and all sorts of natural events that could happen in the next few weeks. Is the Minister satisfied that we are investing enough in vulcanology? Is the appropriate equipment available to send to that area, and is the security available to protect it so that, hopefully, we can prevent lives from being lost?

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the speed of the DFID response; I will make sure that they are passed on to the officials responsible. As she and the whole House will be aware, sadly we have had a lot of experience of having to respond to emergencies. My first experience, when there was an earthquake in Peru shortly after I was appointed Minister, demonstrated clearly to me that well organised systems are in place to ensure that we respond in the most practical way by directing money at people with resources on the ground; they can deliver help to those who need it as quickly as possible.
	We will, of course, give help to those agencies which can offer support in the places where people find themselves; we clearly need to do that. As we have seen in the past two or three days, the great movement of population one way now appears to have become a movement of the population back into Goma, which creates considerable challenges for the aid agencies. I am confident that in time they will be able to respond, but that movement makes circumstances more difficult, for reasons that the hon. Lady will well understand.
	As for whether I am satisfied that everything was in place, the honest truth is that in such circumstances there are always lessons to be learned. To some extent, these eruptions are unpredictable. As I said, I understand that monitoring was occurring, but I am advised that one can never entirely predict when a volcano may erupt. I am sure that those with responsibility for that monitoring will reflect on the experience of the past few days and see what more can and might be done.
	As I said with regard to the impact on the civil war, I hope that those involved will focus their attention on helping the people who have been affected by this terrible catastrophe. The concerns expressed by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members about the added impact of security worries on the ability to deliver aid effectively merely demonstrate the force of the argument that the region needs stability above all else, so it is in everybody's interests—not least those currently affected by the catastrophe—that the Lusaka peace process should be taken forward.

Glenda Jackson: I add my congratulations to those of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on the speed with which the Department responded to the disaster. I believe that the first aeroplane took off at the weekend.
	Is not the situation in Goma perilous not only because of the potential for further eruptions or splits in the side of the mountain, but equally because of toxic gases? Are people attempting to return because they do not know of the dangers that may await them, as they do not trust the information that is being delivered to them? Is not there a case for suggesting that the international aid effort should address the issue? In the light of the terrible use to which radio was put in Rwanda in the past, could the BBC World Service be incorporated in the effort, to ensure that up-to-the-minute, reliable and trustworthy information is delivered to the refugees?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In these circumstances, people are torn between concern about what they may find if they return to their homes and a great desire to see what has happened, especially after one group has begun to return and word has been spread saying, "We managed to make it back, others may follow." With the best will in the world, while I entirely accept her point about the need for proper information on the risks and dangers to be made available, I point out that it is not always easy to persuade people that they should stay where they are.
	Today's situation report from OCHA suggests that the seismic situation may be improving, as the last major tremor was reported early on 20 January. However, as I said earlier, there is serious concern about the possibility of the gases having a toxic effect, especially for those on the lowest lying land down by the lake. I shall take away my hon. Friend's point about whether it would be possible to do more to persuade people to have regard to the genuine concern about those dangers, while recognising that if people choose to move in very large numbers, as we have seen them do over the past couple of days, it can be very difficult to persuade them to do otherwise.

Gary Streeter: I too pay tribute to the rapid response of the Department for International Development and to the fact that it is making use of experienced NGOs in the region, which is clearly the right way forward. Although we all agree that this has been a spectacular natural disaster that has again focused the world's attention on the region, does the Minister not agree that the real disasters faced by the people of the DRC and that region have been the years, decades and generations of civil conflict, insecurity and corruption? Will he do all that he can, especially in view of the Prime Minister's personal passion and the Foreign Secretary's presence in the region, to ensure that our Government seek to use the events as a catalyst to give further momentum to the peace process going on there? Is it not right that while natural disasters come and go, we must strive to ensure that peace and good governance are established for these lovely people? It is no more than they deserve.

Hilary Benn: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the DRC towards the end of the summer. Britain has been actively involved in trying to get precisely the message that he articulates across to those who have been parties to the conflict. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are contributing in several practical ways through supporting the national dialogue and providing a radio infrastructure to enable the Congolese people to have information about both the peace process and the dialogue. That links with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made. We are also giving various other forms of support, to provide humanitarian assistance to those who have suffered through the conflict.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely that, in the longer term, the greatest contribution to helping the people of the DRC and Rwanda will be finding a resolution to the conflict that has scarred the region for so long.

Anne Begg: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about the difficulty of getting aid into an area where there are vast population movements one way and then the other. Are not people going back to Goma more quickly than they might otherwise do through genuine fear of the way in which they might be treated in Rwanda? Have any contingency plans been drawn up in the case of reports from Rwanda of human rights abuses? Action should be taken quickly so that no further destabilisation occurs.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to anxieties that have clearly played a part in leading the people who initially moved to Rwanda to return to the DRC. We have received no reports of the sort about which she expressed anxiety. I suspect that we would first hear about them when people moved back to the DRC in even larger numbers—that would be the quickest response to such anxieties.
	As I said in answer to earlier questions, we need to be guided by people's decisions, notwithstanding advice, about where they choose to locate. They will move to a place where they feel safest even when an objective assessment does not confirm its safety. In those circumstances, the overwhelming priority is to ensure that the aid agencies that are active on the ground and gearing up are able to support people wherever they choose to go.

David Tredinnick: Having visited Goma some years ago and climbed the volcano when it was dormant, I want to make two suggestions. First, it would be unwise to concentrate the aid effort on the side of the Congo that is close to Burundi because of the terrific problems of ethnic strife to which other hon. Members have referred.
	Secondly, I want to take up the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made about animals. Does the Minister know that one of the most important, world-famous gorilla colonies is located on the slopes of the volcano? Many wildlife specialists have tried to save it over the years. It is likely that some disruption has occurred there, that poachers may move in or that many animals have been killed. Will he bear that in mind? Will he also bear in mind the fact that Twycross zoo, in my constituency, has offered to take any orphan gorillas if they are flown to Leicestershire?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful for those two points. The hon. Gentleman is right about the need to ensure that the aid is provided on both sides of the border so that those who suffer in the emergency do not feel that they have to move to one place or another to get access to it.
	I am grateful for the information about the potential impact on the gorillas that live on the south side of the volcano. An assessment of the full impact of the catastrophe will clearly take time. However, I shall ensure that the offer that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed is passed on to those who are looking into the matter.

David Cameron: Like others, I welcome the statement. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the precise use of the £2 million of aid? Is it all for short-term use? Further to the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, will he confirm that all the money will go the aid agencies and none of it to the central or regional governments of the Congo or Rwanda?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to confirm that DFID money is going directly to NGOs or through the United Nations appeal. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the statement, Oxfam has a specific responsibility for water and sanitation. Relief supplies went out on the plane on Saturday night. Merlin plans to establish several clinics, and, with Médecins sans Frontières, has already done that in Goma. Save the Children is providing food relief, as is the World Food Programme.
	The money is intended to support agencies in establishing a presence on the ground as quickly as possible to meet immediate emergency needs: water, first of all; sanitation, because we are concerned about the potential impact of disease; and food and shelter. In the medium term, all those involved will need to consider how they can help in the reconstruction of Goma, if that is possible. Clearly, that will depend on the outcome of further assessments that will need to be made in due course, when we know the full impact of this terrible catastrophe.

British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)

Ben Bradshaw: I should like to make a statement on the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
	A team of British officials visited Guantanamo between 17 and 20 January and saw the three British detainees. We received a full report this morning. The team asked the detainees questions about their identity, nationality and welfare. The officials' report confirms that the three are British and that they are all in good physical health. During lengthy discussions, they spoke without inhibition. None complained of any ill treatment. None said that they had any medical condition requiring treatment. Medical facilities are available in the compound. All three asked for messages to be passed to their next of kin, which we have undertaken to do. The identity of one of the men, Feroz Abbasi, is already in the public domain. It is not our intention to reveal the identities of the other men, pending contact with their families.
	The International Committee of the Red Cross now has a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay, and ICRC officials have access to the detainees at any time. The detainees are free to conduct religious observances. They have prayer mats, and calls to prayer are broadcast over the Camp X-Ray public address system. They are given as much drinking water as they want, three meals a day and food that complies with their religious practice if they require it.
	During the visit, our officials received full co-operation from the camp's commander, who said that the more lurid allegations about torture and sensory deprivation were completely false. The recent pictures of detainees featured in the media were taken on their arrival at the base, when security needs were paramount. The House should not forget that we are talking about some of the most dangerous men in the world, who have in the past displayed murderous and suicidal tendencies—often both together.
	Our officials report that, as the number of detainees grows, there will be a need for more scope for exercise, and every effort is being made to provide all inmates who want one with a copy of the Koran.
	Conditions at Guantanamo Bay have attracted a great deal of parliamentary and media interest. On the basis of the detailed report that I have seen today, I am satisfied that the accusations were premature and that the detainees are being treated in line with international humanitarian norms, in conditions in which security is paramount.
	We are fully satisfied with the co-operation that we have had from the United States authorities on this issue. We and the Americans are well aware that we will be judged by a higher standard than the Taliban and al-Qaeda. On the basis of the report that I have seen today, I can confirm that these standards are being met.

Alan Duncan: Given the unusually short notice that we received of this statement, may I ask the House to accept the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for not being here to respond?
	We—and, I am sure, the entire House—expect the highest standards of treatment to be accorded to the prisoners. The current interest in them as they are held by the US military in Cuba has largely been provoked by photographs that perhaps represent a PR setback, but that, it seems, do not reflect the full truth. We are pleased to learn that the prisoners—in particular, those from the United Kingdom—have no serious complaints about their treatment. They are not suffering the abuse of their human rights that many commentators have asserted; that assertion now appears to have been unfounded. Indeed, in considering that issue we must remember that the very fact that our free press can publish the pictures, ask questions and express opinions is an enduring testimony to the free, democratic society in which we live and which we are fighting to defend.
	As the Minister said, we should be under no illusions. The people who have been transported to Cuba are, more likely than not, highly dangerous terrorists who are part of a network that has shown utter contempt for human life and who have raped and tortured women and innocent civilians, subjugated their own people and even denied those whom they pretended to govern access to life-saving humanitarian aid.
	The prisoners probably have information about their organisation and they could have information on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. We must remember that, by extracting it, we could prevent terrorist outrages and the loss of more innocent lives. If all their human rights had been removed, and if they had been brutally treated when coalition forces captured them in Afghanistan, they probably would not be in Cuba now. There is no reason to suspect that they are likely to receive any worse or harsher treatment than that which they received on capture.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but I would welcome clarification of a number of areas. Does he have any indication of the circumstances in which the British prisoners were apprehended? What jurisdiction do they fall under? Is there any case for bringing them back to this country for trial? What charges are likely to be filed against them?
	Does the Minister have any specific information on whether the detained Britons are al-Qaeda or Taliban members? During questioning over the past two or three days, what indications have any of them given about the nature of their involvement or activities in Afghanistan? I respect the Government's decision not to reveal names until the next of kin have been contacted, but can the Minister offer any indication of where in the United Kingdom the prisoners are from?
	Does the Minister share our view that there must be firmness and fairness in this matter? We want the highest standards without risky naivety, which is what we look for in his answers to our questions.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's supportive comments. He asks about the circumstances of the arrests of the three men, but I am afraid that I cannot give any more details. Even if we had them or if I had seen them, military activity is still going on in Afghanistan and any details that I revealed could jeopardise other people's security. I simply stress to him and to the House that at no stage during their long interviews with British officials did they complain about their treatment, from their arrest to their transfer to Guantanamo and since.
	In terms of a trial, we should not get ahead of ourselves. One problem of the public debate in this country over recent days is that people have assumed things that we are not yet sure about. Until we have had a chance to interview all those concerned, and until we have more details about exactly what went on and the prisoners' circumstances, we should not speculate about their status or where their trial might take place.
	The hon. Gentleman also asks whether I can give some idea of where in the United Kingdom the prisoners come from, but I am afraid that I do not intend to give any more details that might reveal their identities until we have spoken to their families.

David Winnick: If some reports on the treatment of prisoners are exaggeration, that is welcome, but is my hon. Friend aware that disquiet will undoubtedly remain in this country over the British and other prisoners being held? I fully supported the campaign in Afghanistan and believed that it had to be waged, but is he aware that the democracies must accept at all times the necessity of civilised values, which are the opposite of the values of the terrorists and the Taliban? I have no illusions—these are very dangerous people—but, as in 1945, prisoners must be apprehended, questioned and interrogated in accord with civilised values and norms.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that, by our statement and by giving details of the interviews that British officials conducted, some of the disquiet to which he rightly referred will be dispelled.

Michael Moore: As other hon. Members have said, there is great concern in the United Kingdom and elsewhere because of the pictures and reports of the treatment of prisoners in Camp X-Ray. There are continuing worries about how the United States should treat the prisoners. The Minister says that the Red Cross will have a permanent presence at the prison, but will he give an assurance that some form of reporting—independent of the Governments—on the prisoners' conditions will be given to those outside the camp? Is he able to place extracts from the report in the Library of the House of Commons, and make it his habit to do so while the prisoners are kept in detention?
	Although the Minister says that it is too soon to determine the legal status of the prisoners, does he acknowledge the great concern about whether they are being held under the Geneva convention and under what international law they will be tried? Does he accept that there is a damaging contrast between the treatment of John Walker, the United States citizen, who will be tried in a federal court, and the others, including British citizens, who are likely to be tried in a secretive, military tribunal? Does he agree that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done in these circumstances?
	The United States, along with the United Kingdom, made much of the moral case for the war against terrorism. Will the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the impact of the prisoners' treatment on coalition opinion? Is not there a danger that America's treatment of the prisoners at best sends out the wrong signals, and at worst undermines the moral authority of the coalition against terrorism?

Ben Bradshaw: I should have thought that the Red Cross was an eminently independent enough organisation to be able to make its own judgment. It will report to the United States Government in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman asks for more details of the report. We will release as many details as we can, and I have done so today, but I shall not give a running commentary. Much of the detail of the report is confidential material that we cannot put in the public domain, not least because it contains details of the identities and backgrounds of the people involved.
	We have had assurances from the United States that the detainees will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the definition of a prisoner of war is an extremely complicated matter on which it is not easy to make a judgment. What is important, and what matters, is that detainees are treated humanely in accordance with international norms, which is the case, and that if they are brought to trial, they are given a fair trial.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about the impact on coalition opinion. I suspect that the impact has been far greater on some elements of the press in this country than it has been on our coalition allies. As Minister with responsibility for the whole of the Muslim and Arab world, I have not had a single representation on this issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am that public opinion in the Muslim world changed dramatically on the day of the liberation of Kabul, when ordinary people in the Muslim world saw the Taliban in their true colours.

Kevin McNamara: The Minister painted a far rosier picture of the situation in the camps than the American Secretary of Defence did, and for that I suppose we should be grateful.
	What will happen to the British citizens who have been captured? Unless they can be directly connected with September's events, under the Geneva convention they are, surely, prisoners of war or the equivalent. In that case, should not they be tried in this country for offences under our legislation? Have the British Government made representations to the United States that British subjects not accused of crimes in the United States should be tried in the United Kingdom, and that if tried in the United States they should not be subject to the death penalty or to a military tribunal?

Ben Bradshaw: My statement was based not on any opinions expressed by politicians from other countries, but on an account given by reputable British officials after a detailed visit and interview.
	I am afraid it is too early to speculate on what will happen next. That depends on the outcome of the interviews with those in captivity. It is certainly too early to speculate on what might happen to them—on whether they will be tried in the United States, or deported.

Douglas Hogg: Should we not be careful to avoid confusion over the status of the detainees? Some—for example, members of the Afghan forces—may well be entitled to prisoner of war status; others, for example, members of the bin Laden organisation, are persons against whom criminal offences have been alleged. It is difficult to see on what basis those persons could be entitled to prisoner of war status. They are, however, entitled to the kind of protection that would be afforded to any citizen charged with criminal offences before any civilised court.
	Should not our message to the American Government be that no one being held should receive treatment worse than that afforded to those charged with criminal offences before an American court, but that some—probably a minority—are entitled to the higher status of prisoners of war?

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct about the difficulty of arriving at a definition of "prisoner of war". We have made exactly the representations that he suggests to the United States, as well as the representation on the death penalty suggested by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Ann Clwyd: I was in Geneva last week, talking to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the president of the Red Cross. There was no doubt that they felt the detainees should be designated prisoners of war. If there is any dispute about the issue, however, it should be determined by a court of law—an independent tribunal—and certainly not by any one man: not by Donald Rumsfeld, Ben Bradshaw, or any other single person.
	Can my hon. Friend say how many other British prisoners are on their way to Cuba? Why can British prisoners be taken out of Afghanistan without, apparently, any consultation with the British, who did not seem even to know that there were British prisoners until they arrived in Cuba? Can we be assured that that will not happen again?
	As Kofi Annan said last week, human rights cannot be cherry-picked. For 50 years we have fought for a definition of human rights, and I thought that we had arrived at one. I supported the war. I hope that we can persist in our dealings with the United States, and say that—although we support that country—we have standards in Britain, and we do not want them to be dropped.

Ben Bradshaw: First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend and say how much I admire her work on human rights and similar issues. Secondly, let me repeat what I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg): it is not possible to make a blanket declaration that the detainees are prisoners of war, whatever some organisations may want, because under international law the status of any detainee must be considered in the light of the individual case. That is why this is such a complicated issue. What matters is that all the detainees, regardless of whether they are prisoners of war, are entitled to humane treatment and, if prosecuted, to a fair trial.
	I also cannot speculate on whether more British detainees are likely to be on their way, or soon to be on their way, to the base at Guantanamo Bay; but we have good channels of communication with the Americans, and they will continue to operate if that turns out to be the case.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister be kind enough to send a copy of his robust, sensible statement to the editors of all those newspapers who published such scurrilous stories yesterday? Will he remind them that the United States and Great Britain yield to no one in their defence of truth and observance of the highest possible standards in these matters?

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which the Foreign Office news department may like to take up, particularly as I wrote the statement myself.

Geraint Davies: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that my constituent, Mr. Abbasi, is one of the detainees in Camp X-Ray. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reassurance that Mr. Abbasi should be treated both humanely and in accordance with international law. He will know that Mr. Abbasi's mother, Mrs. Juma, fears that her son will face the ultimate breach of human rights: the death penalty. With that in mind, has any progress been made in respect of extradition, particularly given that American detainees will face a federal court? Does he agree that that underlines the case for the establishment of an international criminal court, where these things can be sorted out even-handedly?

Ben Bradshaw: I can give most of the assurances that my hon. Friend has asked for, but it is too soon to speculate about what charges his constituent may face. We regularly, not just on these issues, make plain our views on the death penalty to our friends in the United States. Although the Government and I fully support the idea of an international criminal court, he will know that the jurisdiction of an international criminal court cannot be retrospective. Some people call for these people to be tried in international criminal courts or ad hoc courts, but those are not supposed to replace national jurisdictions. They are used only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

Andrew MacKay: The Minister should be warmly commended by the House for coming at the first possible opportunity to report and to put the minds of many of us at rest after we had read what now appear to be singularly ill informed comments in Sunday's newspapers.
	I ask two specific questions. First, will the Minister confirm that many of the prisoners held in Cuba were among the prisoners who murdered 300 Afghan guards before Christmas; and, secondly, that many of them have openly and publicly said that they wish to do the same to their American guards?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not want to give too many details about those who are in Guantanamo Bay but I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. I can confirm, however, that those who are held there are in the highest category of seriousness in terms of what they have done and the responsibilities that they have had. Some are the most senior foreign al-Qaeda fighters.

Donald Anderson: May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on volunteering the statement so early? I well understand why he says that we should not speculate about where the prisoners will be tried. Wherever they are tried, however, the British subjects should have proper legal safeguards, including access to lawyers, knowing the nature of the case against them and having an appropriate appeal procedure. Can he give the House the undertaking that, whatever the forum in which they are tried, those basic legal safeguards will be upheld?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I can. Again, it is too early to speculate about what charges the prisoners may face, but if the detainees face prosecution, under international norms they will be entitled to legal representation.

Robert Key: Is the Minister aware that, if the prisoners had been held under the Geneva convention, none of the intrusive media and press photography and comment would have been allowed? Under article 13,
	"POWs must at all times be protected particularly against . . . public curiosity".
	The last prisoner of war camp in the United Kingdom was at Rollestone camp in my constituency during the Gulf war. The press and media were forbidden from taking any photographs or approaching the camp to take photographs, which could indeed be taken to humiliate those prisoners.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point for those who think that this is an issue of definition rather than of how the detainees are actually treated. He is absolutely right: there are some ways in which, if they had prisoner of war status, their conditions would be seriously worse. He spoke about press intrusion, and the other aspect is that it would be allowable to hold them indefinitely, until the end of hostilities in Afghanistan.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware that we in the House always expect that all prisoners should be treated according to the highest standards expected of western parliamentary democracies, far beyond what these people would have experienced if they had been prisoners of al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Will he confirm that these men are where they are because they were where they were? They were in Afghanistan, and if the charges against the British prisoners are proven, they were there to fight against their own country and its interests, and if possible to kill many of their own fellow citizens.
	It is extremely important to abide by our own standards, but will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that there are already reports that one of the prisoners has attacked a guard at the camp? In view of the fact that such people have attacked and killed guards in Afghanistan and tried to hijack planes, should not we take a very measured approach indeed?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we should of course insist on treatment that is in accord with international norms, we should never forget who these men are, what they are responsible for, and what many of them have done while in captivity in Afghanistan, including exploding grenades on their bodies to kill themselves, their captors and others. An ITN journalist was killed in one incident. These are highly dangerous fanatics who have absolutely no regard for their own safety or that of others.

Elfyn Llwyd: I note what the Minister said about the three Britons having no complaints about their treatment. Is he in a position to tell us whether their treatment differs from that of the other detainees?

Ben Bradshaw: We have absolutely no reason to believe that that is the case, but our officials, quite rightly, were involved in detailed discussions only with the British detainees.

Ronnie Campbell: We have got to remember that not so long ago these al-Qaeda people were shooting our soldiers in Afghanistan. Anyone who goes abroad to fight for another country is nothing more than a mercenary, and we know what mercenaries were like in Africa. When we talk about these people's human rights, we should remember the people on the planes in America. They were not accorded any human rights.

Ben Bradshaw: I completely agree. Some of the first tranche of Royal Marines returned to my constituency of Exeter last night, having been away from their families and loved ones over Christmas, bearing the brunt of these people's aggression.

Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Minister on his statement and on the answers that he has given. Does he accept that al-Qaeda is still out there, plotting further outrages? If so, does he accept that information gleaned from the interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners will be essential for the prevention of such outrages? If so, does he further accept that it would be absolute madness to accord the protection of the Geneva convention to people who are not regular forces, allowing them to answer only name, rank and number? Finally, does he accept that when these people are brought to trial, we must avoid what happened after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, when important secrets were revealed in a civilian court that led bin Laden to know that his telephones were being listened to and may well have contributed to the success of the attacks on 11 September?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that if too much information is revealed, there is always a danger that other people's lives and security will be put at risk. He is also right to say that many of the people currently detained may have a great deal of useful information that could prevent horrific events such as those of 11 September from being perpetrated again. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, through the information that we have gathered in Afghanistan, we already know much more about the nature of al-Qaeda and its intentions than we did two or three months ago. We have every reason to believe that we have already foiled a number of potentially fatal operations, including one in Singapore recently, as a result of that information.

Malcolm Savidge: We shall soon be commemorating the holocaust, whose horrors surpassed in scale and cruelty even those of 11 September. After the second world war, our US allies played an honourable role in persuading the international community that we should demonstrate civilised values in our treatment of prisoners, and in submitting them to proper judicial process. Would the Government commend that example to our US allies now?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes I would, and I reiterate to my hon. Friend that we are satisfied that the Americans are working in accordance with those international norms—which, as several right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, was never the case with the Taliban, who did not recognise a single international law.

David Cameron: I welcome the Minister's statement and the replies that he has given. May I tempt him to go further? The Government are content to allow suspects to be taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they may be subject to US military tribunal process, possibly including the death penalty. Is it not odd, therefore, that they do nothing about article 3 of the European convention on human rights, the interpretation of which now stops us deporting anyone who may threaten this countr—Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza or anyone else—to a jurisdiction where they may be wanted?

Ben Bradshaw: That is an irrelevant point. The Government would consider every request from the United States for the extradition of any such person on its merits and according to the individual case.

Graham Allen: Does my hon. Friend accept that we have fought a long, difficult and risky war against terrorism and have emerged victorious, but that one staggeringly incompetent misjudgment by the American authorities may throw that gain and that victory away and give incredible propaganda value to the enemies of the free world? Will he make every effort to inform our American friends that the treatment of even the most vile human being must meet the standards for which we fought?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I would not agree with that. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has come here with a pre-written question based on rushing to judgment. He does not seem to have listened to a thing that I have said, or to what I have reported from the interviews conducted by the British officials in Guantanamo Bay. I would also caution him about his claim that we have already been victorious against terrorism: the campaign against terrorism will be very long, and will continue well after peace and security have returned to Afghanistan. I would be extremely cautious about jumping to premature victory.

Glenda Jackson: From which Department of State did British officials go to speak to the British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? When the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross meet British citizens there, will their findings be made public, as I understand that the ICRC does not publish its findings? Are there representatives of the Red Crescent within the group representing the Red Cross? May I remind my hon. Friends that the photographs of what has been dubbed torture were taken, and released, by the American authorities? What was happening may not have constituted torture, but it certainly constituted a gross infringement of human rights. If we are indeed committed to tackling international terrorism and defeating it, examples of western powers not taking Muslim religion, or Muslim lives and human rights, as seriously as others will work against success.

Ben Bradshaw: The officials came from my Department. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that Red Cross reports are always confidential. That is the whole point of them; they are not publicised, and they are not used for grandstanding, but are taken extremely seriously by those Governments to whom they report. It is not up to us to publish them. If the Red Cross wishes to do so, it may. The American Administration are under the same constraints as we are in that respect. I have no doubt that, as usually happens, details of such reports will come into the public domain in some way.
	My hon. Friend asked about Red Crescent representatives, and I must confess that I do not know the answer. I shall write to her on that as soon as I can.

Tam Dalyell: Would it not be wise to be a little cautious about the assertion in the statement that no complaints were made by any of the British prisoners? If the Under-Secretary had been a prisoner, given human nature—particularly American Marine human nature—would he have thought it prudent to complain? Did the prisoners assert in private that there were no complaints?

Ben Bradshaw: As I said in my statement, for which I chose my words extremely carefully, none complained of any ill treatment. There is an important difference there. Points were made about exercise facilities, and I made it clear later in my statement that those facilities would not be adequate if the number of detainees in Guantanamo Bay increased dramatically.
	I am not prepared to give my hon. Friend details of exactly who was present, but our officials spoke to detainees for a long time and were quite satisfied that the detainees spoke without inhibition.

Harry Barnes: Should we not openly recognise that we are dealing with two important and conflicting sets of principles? First, security is imperative, and that may lead to people being treated toughly. Secondly, there are humanitarian considerations, and we are supposed to have standards that differ from those of the people we have been in conflict with. We must try to reconcile those two different sets of principles.
	Should we not say that the people who are being detained are prisoners of war? President Bush himself began the argument about war by declaring a war on terrorism. The prisoners are the consequence of the action taken to defeat terrorism, and that is one ground on which we could be clear about humanitarian considerations.

Ben Bradshaw: I think that I have already answered that question in several of my earlier replies. The definition of "prisoner of war" is complex. What matters most is that detainees should be treated humanely and in accordance with international norms, and that if they are brought to trial, the trials should be fair.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

John Reid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill represents the biggest overhaul of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland for at least 30 years. Despite all our difficulties, the real progress that we have seen in Northern Ireland society during the past few years deserves to be matched by a modern, progressive, forward-looking system of justice. The criminal justice review proposed how that should be done, and the Bill realises the key aims of the review—the delivery of a criminal justice system that is fair, impartial, effective and joined up. It occurs, of course, in the context of the Belfast agreement. That agreement was the catalyst, but such a review was needed in any case. The real test of a criminal justice system is whether it makes people feel safer in their own localities; the real test of the Bill is whether it will improve the system's ability to do that.
	I am satisfied that the review's measures will help to foster public trust in the system, to enhance transparency and openness and to promote more effective ways to reduce crime and the fear of crime. They will do that through reform of the prosecution process, the creation of a chief inspector of criminal justice and the modernisation of the juvenile justice system.
	The Bill will safeguard the independence and impartiality of the system, while maintaining a focus on the real issues and concerns of the community that it serves. The new arrangements will increase public understanding of the system and public confidence in it. They will retain the best of the old system and integrate international best practice to ensure that services are delivered in a more effective, transparent and accountable way in the future.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. I also apologise for not being present at the beginning of his remarks, but that has come about because the debate in Committee on a statutory instrument on a fairly important issue relating to police evidence in Northern Ireland was scheduled for precisely the same time as this business, and I have had to interrupt my remarks in replying for the Opposition in that debate to get here. It was not possible to sort things out, despite attempts on our side to do so in the ordinary way, so could you let it be known that that is unacceptable and a discourtesy not only to my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)—who have also just come into the Chamber, having served on the Statutory Instrument Committee—but to the other representatives of the Opposition parties who want to take part in both debates?

Lembit �pik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is right to raise this issue. May I ask you to find out whether, in future, such things can be organised so that those of us who have understandably stretched resources can make the full contribution that we want to make to two very important subjects? Surely it would have been possible to organise our proceedings so that those who care about and are actively involved in those subjects could have contributed to both debates without having to prioritise one above the other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much understand the concern that hon. Members are expressing, but it is not a matter for the Chair; it should be taken up through the usual channels, and I suggest that hon. Members do so. I trust that the usual channels will have heard the points made in the Chamber this afternoon.

John Reid: I merely respond by saying that I note and understand the difficulties that have been caused. I can assure the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that if things have ended this way, it is not because any discourtesy was intended, as I am sure he will realise. I understand that these things were discussed through the usual channels. However, business in the Chamber is extremely flexiblecorrectly soand it causes inconvenience not only for those with limited resources, but for those of us in government, with all the Government's resources. This afternoon, I had to cancel an engagement in Belfast, and then unexpectedly found that I could have carried it out. I note what the hon. Gentleman says; these things are not very satisfactory, but I hope that he accepts that there was no intention of discourtesy, and we shall try to ensure that there is not such a chronological coincidence in future. I extend those remarks to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
	The Bill also occurs, of course, in the context not only of modernising our justice system in Northern Ireland in the wake of the Belfast agreement, but of devolution. The changes in the criminal justice system for which the Bill provides are important in their own right, but they will also help to pave the way for the ultimate devolution of those functions to the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.
	The Government believe that devolution throughout the United Kingdom has been one of our greatest achievementscertainly, it is one of our most historic achievementsand nowhere more so than in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have already been able to take great strides in bringing politics home to Northern Ireland. We are not complacent at all about the challenges that face us in that direction, but we are committed to seeing that process and the process of devolution of power, as well as responsibility, continue.
	Policing and criminal justice are currently reserved to Westminster but, in the Belfast agreement, the Government signalled their willingness in principle to devolve responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. We remain committed to that aim. Our target is to devolve policing and justice after the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003. Obviously that decision to devolve can only be taken at the time, taking account of security and other relevant considerations. It is thus a target, not a deadline. I make that clear just in case anyone at a future stage should misinterpret anything that I have said.

Martin Smyth: I am not worried about the deadlines, but am more concerned about the principle in the light of the fact that the Justice Minister in the Dail, John O'Donoghue, has made it abundantly plain that Sinn Fein cannot share in the responsibility for such affairs of government because of its inextricable links with an active terrorist organisation. However, in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein will be put into a position into which it is privy to security issues. Is the Secretary of State therefore saying that the measure will not be implemented in Northern Ireland until things change and there has been a complete break from terrorism and decommissioning has been completed?

John Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman will realise that certain parties in the Republic of Ireland and the spokesman for the Government in the Republic of Ireland have made it plain that there is no question of Sinn Fein taking part in government there in any areasecurity or otherwiseas long as it is linked to a private army. That is worth saying, and it is my understanding of the statements that have been made over the past few weeks.
	Secondly, people recognise that the problems that we are dealing with in Northern Ireland are unique and not exactly comparable with those in the Republic of Ireland. That is precisely why the Belfast agreement allowed for inclusive politics that includes the republican movement. That was done under the premise, of course, that the imperfections in the democratic systemnamely the link with a paramilitary organisation that was holding on to weaponswere related to a transitional tolerance and to the assumption that the process of decommissioning would run parallel to the process of changing the democratic structures and social conditions in Northern Ireland.
	Thirdly, although I have given a target date for the devolution of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, that will be subject to satisfactory progress being made in a whole number of directions. One of them is the carrying through of the reforms that are currently being carried through for policing.
	That is as full an answer as I can give to the hon. Gentleman. My view is quite plain and I will place it on the record again. Sinn Fein should participate in support and responsibility for policing. That is worth saying at a time when Sinn Fein spokesmen continually tell us how much more the police should be doing to safeguard the citizenry of Northern IrelandCatholic and Protestant. It is not difficult for anyone to see the inconsistency between demanding that the police be more effective in what they are doing and the people who demand that withholding their support from policing. Indeed, in some cases people in the community have attacked the police both physically and verbally. People will notice the inconsistency in what they say.

Quentin Davies: I think that the Secretary of State is asking why Sinn Fein-IRA do not take up their places on the Policing Board and support the new police service, and I thoroughly agree with the sentiments that he expresses. However, as he keeps making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRAone every week at the moment, some of which we shall discuss laterwhy does he not use that opportunity to say to them, Look, if you want all these special arrangements for yourself, the quid pro quo is that you come out of the closet and accept the new Police Service for Northern Ireland and join the Policing Board? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have that negotiating relationship with them? Why does he not take advantage of all the concessions that he keeps giving them?

John Reid: First, if the hon. Gentleman does not know that I have been pressing Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board, he has not been listening carefully to what I have been saying for the past nine or 10 months not only privately, but very publicly. Secondly, if he persistsI make this as a general commentin trying to square the circle of saying that he supports the Belfast agreement as a whole but opposes every element of it on the basis that it is a concession to republicanism, the inconsistencies of his position will become even more apparent than the inconsistencies of Sinn Fein's position of demanding a more effective police force at the same time as it withholds support for that force.

Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Reid: I will give way but, after that, I want to make progress. My speech is longer than I should have liked because I want to go into detail. I also have to do the hon. Gentleman the discourtesy of leaving soon afterwards because of today's statements.

Quentin Davies: I must set the record straight. We are serious in our support for the Belfast agreement, and that is why we support the new police service. We also want to urge all parties to take up their seats on the Policing Board and actively support the service, which shows our support for the agreement. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, however, we are prepared to use some linkage. Instead of just expressing the vague hope that others might fulfil their commitments under the Belfast agreement, we link that to the concessions that Sinn Fein-IRA are seeking. He seems to shy away from the essential element of linkage.

John Reid: I am glad for the clarification that the hon. Gentleman supports the practical implications of the Belfast agreement. Presumably he also supports the Patten review of policing on the grounds not only that it is an integral part of the agreement, but that it was carried out by a former Conservative Minister. So I look forward to the time when he and his colleagues stop referring to the changes arising from the Patten recommendations as concessions or the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Depending on what he and his colleagues say in future, we will, no doubt, discover whether that is the case or whether the inconsistencies will continue to be laid before us.

Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman explained how Sinn Fein-IRA can join the Policing Board. He made it plain to my party and the other parties that if they did not join by a certain time and abide by it, they would not be able to join until later on, after the next election.

John Reid: The answer, as the hon. Gentleman says, is that Sinn Fein-IRA could join the Policing Board by applying to join it. They did not do that when we sent out the original invitations, so the opportunity was missed. At the moment, as he knows, a process is under way in which local councils will nominate people for the district policing partnerships. It remains to be seen whether Sinn Fein, while demanding more effective policing, again refuses to take up that opportunity at the level of councillor. The hon. Gentleman is right: the vacancies on the Policing Board have been filled and, unless there is a change in legislation, the opportunity to serve on it will not occur for some time.
	However, it is not just a case of joining the main Policing Board or even the DPPs. Joining the Policing Board is the public and practical symbol that a party is committed to making the police in Northern Ireland effective.
	My main pointon this occasion, perhaps unusually, the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreementis that it is inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy to demand more effective policing, continually to upbraid the police for not getting the results that they should be getting and, at the same time, not only to withhold support from but to oppose the policing service. Those who do so are not only eschewing their responsibility but attacking the police at every opportunity. I hope that that obvious inconsistency can be overcome, and we all look forward to the day when not only the nationalists and Unionists but the broader community, including republicans, take the responsibility for supporting the implementation of the means of law and order in a society to which they now say they are committed.

David Burnside: The Secretary of State is sending to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) the mixed message that he sent to the Ulster Unionist party. It appears from what he just said that if Sinn Fein wanted to participate in the Policing Board, he would consider making the opportunity available, and that would include passing legislation to allow it on to the board before the date that has been laid down. He is sending a mixed message to the House.

John Reid: I am saying no such thing. The hon. Member for North Antrim asked me what was the position in law, and I told him the positionit is as simple as that. I also told him that under existing legislation Sinn Fein councillors could, if they wished, be nominated for the district policing partnerships. Both of those are the case. That is not a mixed message; it is a factual statement of the present position.
	I thought that it might be possible, just for once, for hon. Members to concentrate on the main message. I should have thought that the main message on which Members from both sides of the House have a common view is that when people demand rights, they have to be matched by responsibilities. There is therefore a gross inconsistency in demanding the right to have an effective police force and complaining that the police are failing, through incompetence or conspiracy, to achieve an extremely difficult task while saying, We will neither support the police force nor succour it. Indeed, we will go out of our way, in every wayverbally and in other waysto impede its effectiveness.

Gregory Campbell: rose

John Reid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will try to make some progress.

Gregory Campbell: For the avoidance of doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim asked the Secretary of State about the date by which Sinn Fein and other parties had to nominate people to sit on the Policing Board. That issue has been raised with my party and other parties. The Secretary of State replied to us, as he did to others, that if Sinn Fein had not made nominations by a certain time, we would move on. Is he saying that that is still the case or that if Sinn Fein wanted to make nominations now, next week or next month, legislation would be introduced to allow it to do so? Has it missed the boat?

John Reid: The position in law has not changed. People have not made nominations. If the hon. Gentleman has any indication that Sinn Fein is about to join the Policing Board in return for anything, I hope that he will share it with the House. I stated that, unless the law is changed, there is no way in which Sinn Fein can join the Policing Board at present, and that is a fact.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a review of the implementation of Patten and ancillary aspects, which will run for several months, is about to start. That review was discussed with the hon. Gentleman and his party and the Ulster Unionist party. That is public knowledge. It is public knowledge that we have said that if legislative changes are required as a result of that review, they would be put through. The position has not changed, nor has my view that Sinn Fein should join the Policing Board. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is implying. I hope that he is not saying that he does not want republicans on the Policing Board; I am sure that that is not his intention. If it is, I should be obliged if he would let us know, because it changes the complexion. I thought that we all wanted Sinn Fein to take up responsibilities on the Policing Board; I certainly do. I want it to play a full part in meeting the responsibilities that naturally go along with rights in a modern, civilised democratic society.

Lembit �pik: rose

John Reid: I shall give way once more, then have a long run, I hope, without interventions.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State and am grateful for his forbearance.
	Will the Secretary of State provide clarification? Am I right in understanding that at the moment there is no opportunity for Sinn Fein to take up places, even if it wanted to do so? Is the Secretary of State therefore saying that the issue is about focusing the next time that members of the board are appointed?

John Reid: That is the case in law. Everyone is keen on hypothetical scenarios and conspiracies, so let me put it to the hon. Gentleman that if the republican movement turned around tomorrow and said, We made a mistake, we would like to join the Policing Board, I would feel duty-bound to go to the parties on the board, including those of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken today, and say, Sinn Fein wishes to join the Policing Board. Is there a way in which we can allow that through common consent? What I would not dobut an objective observer of comments that have been made would feel that hon. Gentlemen are forcing me to do sois say to Sinn Fein, That's very nice and historic. Would you mind going away for two years, and perhaps then we will consider allowing you the privilege of joining the Policing Board.

Gregory Campbell: Quite right.

John Reid: That is not an entirely constructive way forward. If anyone wants reassurance that there is no conspiracy and that I have no inkling about whether those events are likely to take place over the next couple of weeks, I should be obliged if they would accept my assurance.
	Perhaps we can now proceed with the reform of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, although I have a funny feeling that I am not going to be allowed to do so. However, while I have a window of opportunity, I shall proceed. Policing and criminal justice, as I was saying, are currently reserved to Westminster, but in the Belfast agreement the Government signalled their willingness in principle to devolve responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
	I was saying that we remain committed to that aim; I think that I was about distinguish between a target and a deadline. A target for devolving policing and justice would be after the Assembly elections, scheduled for May 2003. For our part, we recognise that that is undoubtedly a challenging target, but we are committed to doing everything that we can to meet it. We want to ensure that good progress is made in implementing the review before then, so we have a formidable programme of work ahead of us.
	The terms of reference of the criminal justice review and the composition of the review group were set out in the Belfast agreement. Implementation of the review therefore represents continued progress in implementing the agreement. Indeed, it is true to say that it was the last element of the agreement that had to be started; that has now been accomplished. On the implementation plan, the Bill gives effect to many of the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland which was published in March last year. Other recommendations do not require legislation and are being implemented separately. Details of all the steps being taken are set out in the criminal justice review implementation plan, which is the Government's formal response to the review.
	The implementation plan was published for consultation, along with a draft version of the Bill on 12 November 2001.
	We intend to continue consulting on the proposals in the plan in the coming months.

Kevin McNamara: rose

John Reid: An updated version of the plan will be published after the Bill receives Royal Assent, by which time we will be in a position to give further details on how we intend to implement the review recommendations and more precise time scales in that regard. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.

Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend has answered my question.

John Reid: If other hon. Members could signal to me in the same way, we might avoid interventions.
	In publishing the draft Bill, the Government have done their best to ensure fullest scrutiny of the key proposals. I know that some would have preferred a longer consultation period. Indeed, we, too, would have welcomed that, but we needed to ensure that the proposals were well developed before publication. We are not claiming to have got everything right, which is why we have committed ourselves to consultation with politicians, practitioners and others. In any case, it is questionable whether we could have increased scrutiny by publishing the draft Bill earlier this year, when the parties were rather preoccupied with the future of the institutions. We now have revitalised local institutions. With the Good Friday agreement back on track, we can now turn our attention fully to these important proposals.

Bill Tynan: The Government's first 16 recommendations regarding the criminal justice review are concerned with human rights. Is my right hon. Friend aware that concern has been expressed by certain parties about the fact that the Bill does not include human rights in full? Is he content that the Bill as it stands covers human rights in full?

John Reid: My hon. Friend has shown impeccable and choreographed timing, as that is precisely the matter with which I was about to deal. I hope that I shall answer his question.
	The review group recommended that human rights be made central to the justice system. In formulating its recommendations, the group considered not only the European convention on human rights, but 15 other international human rights standards and instruments. The entire review is drafted with those principles in mind, just as the Government's Human Rights Act 1998 puts human rights at the heart of policy making and operations for all public authorities. The lessons that we drew from study not only of our own procedures, but of international procedures and standards, permeate our whole approach. The issue will arise again to some extent during consideration of the detail of the Bill, to which I should now like to turn.
	The Bill has six parts and 13 schedules. Part 1 covers the courts and judiciary and reinforces the primacy of the merit principle and the continuing independence of the judiciary. It makes provision for a Judicial Appointments Commission, which, in the new context of devolution, will help to ensure the transparency of the judicial appointments system. Part 1 also amends the eligibility criteria for judicial office and requires all new appointees to the offices listed in schedule 6 to take the new oath proposed in the review. Clause 13 provides for the Lord Chief Justice to replace the Lord Chancellor as head of the Northern Ireland judiciary following devolution. Schedule 5 transfers to the Lord Chief Justice some of the Lord Chancellor's administrative functions in relation to the courts. In addition, part 1 contains provisions for the creation of the office of lay magistrate, which may be brought into force either before or after devolution.
	Part 2 covers Law Officers and the new Public Prosecution Service. It provides for the appointment of a local Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the creation of a Westminster-based Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. Both posts are to be commenced on or after the devolution of justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Attorney-General for Northern Ireland will become a figure responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly and will carry out many of the existing functions of the post and some new ones, but not all the functions of the current Attorney-General fall within the devolved field. That is why we will create the new post of Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, mirroring arrangements in Scotland. The Advocate-General will be responsible to Parliament for those of the Attorney-General's current functions that are within the reserved and excepted fields in Northern Ireland.
	The Bill provides for establishing a chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland and a Northern Ireland Law Commission. Those new institutions will ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies and legal framework of the criminal justice system. They will facilitate its evolution into a more clearly defined, modern and joined-up system of justice.
	Part 4 deals with youth and restorative justice. It sets out the principal aim of the youth justice system as the prevention of crime committed by children. It also provides for two new youth justice orders: a community responsibility order and a reparation order to broaden the number of measures at the court's disposal for dealing with young offenders, and for custody care orders when detention is appropriate for children under 14.
	The Bill provides for dealing with persons under 18 as children in the criminal justice system in line with international practice and the internationally accepted definition of a child. Part 4 also allows for a youth conference system as a diversionary measure or a court-based disposal. Youth conferencing is a model that has a notable international pedigree. It is already being used in a pilot form in England and Wales as part of referral orders under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
	The youth conference system for which the Bill provides tries to repair the damage to social values and relationships that crime causes. It does that by giving the victim, the offender and the community a stake in the official response to crime. The young person is given an opportunity to learn the way in which his behaviour affected the life of the victim and to make reparation for his crime.
	Part 5 contains a range of provisions, which include giving victims enhanced rights to be informed about the release of offenders. It provides for the Secretary of State to devise a community safety strategy and paves the way for the establishment of new local structures to take the matter forward in future.
	Part 5 regulates the use of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms and outside courthouses. It empowers the Lord Chancellor to direct that exceptional legal aid may be made available in specific circumstances, including for inquests. It also empowers the Lord Chancellor to transfer the functions of the Northern Ireland Court Service after devolution and requires that service to provide security in courts.
	The Bill has comprehensive and far-reaching provisions to modernise the landscape of criminal justice in Northern Ireland and to help ensure that impartiality and respect for all remain central to its ethos, aims and processes.
	Part 6 covers the commencement arrangements for the Bill and its extent.
	The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General are responsible for several provisions. It is only right that I express appreciation for their work. We have worked closely together on preparing the Bill. We continue to do that in driving forward implementation.
	Hon. Members will know about the review of the criminal courts in England and Walesthe Auld reportwhich is currently subject to public comment. The Auld report and the criminal justice review undertook a fundamental examination of parts of the criminal justice system. However, overlap is relatively limited. We shall keep a close eye on the decisions that were made in the light of public comments in England and Wales, especially given the similarities between the two legal systems.
	It is too early to ascertain the final decisions on implementing the Auld report in England and Wales. That is even more true of deciding whether it would be appropriate to extend any changes to Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Bill is unlikely to be the appropriate vehicle for change. If legislation is required to extend reforms into Northern Ireland, we will consider the best way forward with colleagues in England and Wales.
	Let me say a word about the extent of the Bill. With some technical exceptions, it applies only to Northern Ireland. The only substantive point is the creation of the new Westminster office of the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, who, as I said earlier, will carry out the functions of the current Attorney-General for Northern Ireland which are excepted matters. The Bill deals with reserved or excepted matters as defined by schedules 2 and 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	The prospect of the devolution of justice functions means that we will need to consider the way in which the relationships between Westminster and the devolved Administration will operate in practice. We shall work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on the arrangements for future administrative co-operation in this field.

Edward Garnier: I take it that the Secretary of State is now dealing with part 2clause 23 and so forthwhich deals with the appointment of the Law Officers for Northern Ireland. Am I right in thinking that the intended holder of the office of Attorney-General for Northern Ireland need not necessarily be a Member of the Assembly, and will be an extra-parliamentary officer? Is that right?

John Reid: If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's question correctly, I can say yes, not only will that officer not be a Member of the Assembly, he will be independent of it. Does that answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question?

Edward Garnier: Clearly, the Attorney-General of England is independent of Parliament.

John Reid: He is independent of Parliament, but accountable to it.

Ian Paisley: Under the old system, when Stormont was in existence, did not the Attorney-General from here look after those matters that were not devolved to the Stormont Administration? Why must we have an Advocate-General? Can the Attorney-General here not continue with his duties of dealing with matters that are not devolved?

John Reid: A number of things have happened since the days to which the hon. Gentleman refersI would not question his memory on those former arrangementsone of which is devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom such as Scotland and Wales. Nevertheless, the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland could be the Attorney-General, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I hope that that answers his question.
	I want to say a few words on the outcome of the consultation process. There has been pretty extensive consultation on these proposals, before and after the review group's report was produced. In addition, there has been a consultation process on the Bill. We have taken the outcome of that consultation carefully into account when shaping the legislation. We have consulted the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the policy areas in the draft legislation that have implications for the devolved Administration, and we will continue to consult and co-operate with them as we make our preparations for devolution.

Crispin Blunt: rose

John Reid: I am grateful to all those who submitted responses to the consultation, and I shall now give way for further consultation with the hon. Gentleman.

Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to whether Members of the Assembly thought that the period of consultation was acceptable?

John Reid: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman missed my earlier remark that we, too, would have liked a longer consultation period. Nor will he have missed my making the point that there will be further consultation as the Bill goes through the House, some of which will no doubt take the form of contributions from him and his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. Yes, there could always be more consultation, but I am trying to make the point that there has been a genuine degree of consultation, both before and after the publication of the report. I would also like to point out that the review group's recommendations were in the public domain for a prolonged period before they were formally put out to consultation.

Crispin Blunt: An important principle is involved here. The early part of the consultation on the review process was perhaps a model for how this business should be carried out. However, the latter part, with the rush from the review stage to the draft Bill, and the very short opportunity for the Assembly and for the Opposition to consult the officials taking the Bill through Parliament, has not been a model. The most deleterious part of this process is that, although we have the chance to have consultations through debate on the detail of the Bill in Committee, we face a programme motion that will limit those consultations to 12 sittings. That is short of what the officials believe in necessary, and well short of my assessment of what is needed, particularly as there are four other Opposition parties, which I hope will be represented in Committee if the House chooses to send the Bill into Committee having given it approval on Second Reading. I implore the Secretary of State

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is becoming a speech. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to contribute later.

John Reid: Emollient as I always am, I must say that the hon. Gentleman has a damn cheek. First, the review recommendations have been in the public domain for almost two years. Secondly, he and his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues have had unparalleled access to our officials and to information, which I cannot recall being given when we were in opposition, even under a bipartisan approach. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the UnderSecretary met the Chairman of the relevant Assembly Committee and, specifically at his request, yet again extended the consultation period. Finally, we are still in the consultation process in that judgments and changes can be made, and we are sensitive to that.
	I am now well aware that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that my officials report to him rather than to me. I am aware of his views and those of everyone else, including my officials, but our efforts to make available information and consultation facilities have been such that it is churlish to say that this is hardly a model process. He has no experience of trying to take such a Northern Ireland measure through the House. The situation is in flux and there are deadlines, some of which he helps to create, with which we have to cope in the general ebb and flow of events. Given all the circumstances, we have done damn well to extend the consultation as we have.

Crispin Blunt: I do not want the Secretary of State to be under any misapprehension. I commended him and the Northern Ireland Office for the way in which they handled the early part of the processindeed, I said that that was a modelbut it is an enormous pity that the final stages, which are taking place in the House, face a programme motion that will seriously shorten consultation in Committee. That is a great problem. Otherwise, this would be virtually a model process. I implore the Secretary of State, even at this stage, to consider withdrawing the programme motion so that we can finish consideration in Committee in a way that is acceptable all round.

John Reid: I accept the hon. Gentleman's accolade that this has been a model process, at least up to this point. I did not interpret the burden of his remarks in that way, but I accept that that is what he is saying.

John McFall: May I put it on record that the Secretary of State's gratitude is overwhelming? Like me, he was a shadow spokesman for years and years, working on the Floor of the House and considering many Bills in Committee. I did not have access to civil servants in opposition, so the very fact that access has been provided during the consultation is a compliment to the Government. Not once as Opposition Members were we given such access.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I must tell the House that the matter has been well aired. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.

Kevin McNamara: rose

John Reid: I shall do so with great zeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but first I give way to my hon. Friend.

Kevin McNamara: I risk straining my right hon. Friend's emollience, but will the Government itemise the Northern Ireland Assembly's recommendationsI think that they number between 13 and 17; I have not seen the full list, although I have read the Assembly debateand give their decision on its more or less unanimous request? It would help matters considerably if the Government responded to that request, and the only real bone of contention was the question of symbols.

John Reid: We will consider those recommendations in some detail. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, although the consultation has been going on for some time in an informal capacity, we have had this document for only a few days. We shall certainly give serious consideration to what my hon. Friend has said.
	We have consulted the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly on those policy areas of the draft legislation that have implications for the devolved Administration. We will continue to consult and co-operate with the Executive and Assembly. The spirit in which that has taken place has been unusually constructive compared with our discussions on some items. There has been a degree of common support for the proposals, which has not always been apparent in everything the Government have tried to do in Northern Ireland.
	I am grateful to all those who submitted responses during the consultation exercise, which were, on the whole, positive and came from a wide range of interests. There now appears to be a broad consensus that the policies in the Bill represent the best way forward. Some helpful suggestions have been made during the consultation on the detailed operation of these policies. We shall take a number of comments on board by making the necessary amendments in Committee.
	The great bulk of the comments that we have received thus far have been constructive. There is a great deal in the review on which the parties in Northern Ireland can agree, although I recognise that some issues are more difficult than others.
	Inevitably, perhaps, the part of the Bill that has aroused most concern has been the provisions on symbols. The Bill proposes a number of changes in the light of the review's recommendations. This is obviously a highly sensitive area, and the review would probably have been criticised whatever outcome it came up with.
	We fully endorse the review's recognition of the need to strike a balance between recognising the sensitivities of the various communities in Northern Ireland and confirming the courts' position within the agreed constitutional framework.
	We are considering all the representations we have received, including a number expressing concern on heritage grounds about the removal of certain symbols. We will consider whether any changes are needed in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise, and the views expressed in the House. We are open to any constructive suggestions, particularly those capable of attracting cross-community support.
	Another subject on which we have received a number of submissions is community safety. There was widespread support in the local government sector for a provision in the Bill to give councils clear statutory authority to undertake community safety work. I very much welcome the councils' intention to play an active role in community safety, which will contribute to reducing crime and the fear of crime in their localities. In order to facilitate that, I am minded, subject to consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, to bring forward an amendment on those lines.
	The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 sets out the crucial role of the Policing Board in the development of district policing partnerships. It will have an important role to play in ensuring that the police contribute effectively to the partnerships necessary to deliver community safety.
	We do not envisage that the district policing partnerships will have the lead role in community safety, as that is not an issue for the police alone, and the other organisations which contribute to the delivery of community safety, such as housing and social services, are not included in the membership of those partnerships.
	I am also conscious that the Executive have announced in their Programme for Government a review of public administration. They are also developing an important resource in the new local strategic partnerships. Both those initiatives could have major implications for the longer-term structures that we adopt for taking forward work on community safety, and I look forward to discussing those with the Executive.
	Many of our proposals are dependent on having legislation in place before they can be fully implemented. However, that will still allow us to make early progress on areas that can be taken forward administratively, or for which we can usefully undertake some preparatory work. We have already published a document setting out the purpose and aims for the criminal justice system, as recommended by the review. We have appointed a Judicial Appointments Commissioner for Northern Ireland. We will shortly be publishing for consultation a community safety strategy, so as to stimulate further public debate on this important area of work.
	Work has already begun to prepare the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the handling of the new responsibilities envisaged by the review.
	I have tried to explain the burden of the Bill, discussing some aspects in broad terms and others in more detail. The Bill, and the other steps that we are taking as a result of our decisions on the review, are designed to create a justice system for the 21st century. We are combining best practice in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world with innovative approaches to old problems.
	In many areas, such as that of prosecution, the steps that we are taking will bring practice in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in England, Scotland and Wales. In other areas, such as youth conferencing, we will develop UK practice by learning from other countries. I believe that if others have experience that is worth taking on board, we have a duty to take the opportunity presented by the review and use it to best effect.
	We will of course ensure that we incorporate appropriate safeguards. The justice system is too important for us to take a leap of faith. We will use pilots and evaluation to build up our own experience of how the measures fit the particular needs of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, however, deserve the opportunity to match their criminal justice systems with the best in the world. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Quentin Davies: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm; because it introduces aspects to the judicial system which depart from the principle that Northern Ireland is fully a part of the United Kingdom for judicial as well as other purposes; and because it represents a further stage in the policy of unilateral and unbalanced concession to republicanism in Northern Ireland.
	Let me begin by saying something about consultation, as there seemed to be some confusion about it a moment ago. The issue of consultation between Government and Opposition is very important to the way in which our parliamentary system works, although it is not always understood outside.
	Although other Members may not believe it, I am an optimist. I think that half a loaf is a good deal better than no bread, and I am grateful for the partial consultation that took place. Once the Bill had been published, the UnderSecretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), kindly gave me an opportunity to go through it with his civil servants and put our points to them. The civil servants were very able, and took us through the Bill clearly and thoroughly. We expressed our views candidly, for what they were worth; so if the Bill is given a Second Reading, which I rather hope it is not, a number of the detailed amendments that we may table in Committee will not be unfamiliar to the Under-Secretary of State.
	To some extent, then, we put our cards on the table as well. We played fairly. What we did not have was consultation of any kind before the Bill's publication. The Government did not suggest taking us into their confidence in regard to measures that might or might not be in the Bill, or the rationale for its presentationor its presentation at this particular time. Had such an invitation been issued I would have accepted it on the Opposition's behalf, on the same basis. If the discussion was to be confidential, we would have respected that confidentiality; if not, we would have played by whatever rules of the game the Government proposed. What we had, however, was half-consultationalthough, as I have said, we are extremely grateful for that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made a reasonable point when he said that the process had been rushed. During an extraordinarily long periodabout 20 months, between March 2000 and November last yearthe Government did nothing following the report's publication; then they suddenly produced the Bill. The Secretary of State must be a bit sensitive about the delay, because he mentioned it in his speech, no doubt pre-emptively. He said that it had happened because of distraction with the building of institutions. I do not think that that should have interrupted progress on something involving justice, and the Secretary of State's remarks may have been more in the nature of an excuse.
	Suddenly the Bill was produced, following a consultation process that was far too rapid. To give him his due, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that and extended the consultation over Christmas. I pay tribute to him for that, but the process was still rather rushed. By contrast, for 20 months nothing apparently happened. We could have had some pre-publication consultation during that time.
	I wholeheartedly endorse the complaint about the timetable motion. The whole House will be aware of our objections in principle to that system. The imposition of a timetable motion is particularly damaging when fundamental constitutional issues are raised.

Des Browne: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has put on record the level of co-operation that he has had from civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office, from me and from my fellow Ministers. I say unequivocally that in my experience, although it is limited, the degree of access to civil servants that he and his colleagues were given was unprecedented, but before March 2000, when the review was published, there was a period of consultation by the review itself. The Conservative party took part in that consultation and submitted an extensive memorandum. Following the consultation on the review, my predecessor engaged on a consultation, which I know the Conservative party took part in for a period. Given that there have been effectively 20 months of consultation since the review was published, and given how consistent the Bill and the implementation plan are with the provisions of the review, which part of the Bill came as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Minister to make a very long intervention. I think that the matter has been thoroughly aired. I will allow the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to respond to the point, but we should then get on to the content of the Bill.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Minister. In fact, we did not know what the Government were going to do about restorative justice and about some of the more technical penal aspects. We hoped that they would not take on board the recommendations relating to the royal coat of arms and the oath of allegiance. I will come to those matters in a second.
	Today has been a memorably bad day for Parliament and for Northern Ireland. Not content with the dubious initiative by the Government before Christmas, using their majority to introduce a motion in the House to create a special status for certain types of Member of Parliament that was designed to accommodate the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to raise matters that are not included in the Bill during this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave these matters to the occupant of the Chair.

Quentin Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Not content with that, the Prime Minister decided today to make a great display of it, to roll out the red carpet and to provide the unprecedented platform

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should now come to the content of the Bill. He must not pursue lines that are outside the limits of the Bill; otherwise, he may have seriously to curtail his speech.

Quentin Davies: I hope to persuade the House that the Bill and the concessions in it are part and parcel of a general policy that has been pursued by the Government with increasing intensity over the past few months. Today's rather disreputable charade in Downing street was part and parcel of that.
	May I be permitted to comment on the fact that no one will be taken in by the theory, which I gather has been put about by the Government, that the press conference in Downing street and meeting with the Prime Minister have nothing to do with Sinn Fein-IRA Members arriving here for the first time to claim their new privileges? It is claimed that it was just a routine meeting. One talent that all of us would concede to the Government is that of great sophistication in manipulating the media. The idea that it had never occurred to them that, if they had a meeting in Downing street, there would be a press conference, and if they had that on the day when those Members were coming to claim new privileges, that would greatly enhance the propaganda victory of Sinn Fein-IRA, seems so naive

John Reid: rose

Quentin Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State is not about to ask the House to swallow that.

John Reid: I would have thought that reforming the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland was an important enough subject not to have to spend a lot of time on what is a bit of a cheap soundbite, but since it has been brought up to catch the news, let me make it absolutely plain that the Prime Minister's meeting with Sinn Fein today was arranged weeks ago and is a normal meeting exactly like our meetings with the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party or other parties at their request. This may not have struck the hon. Gentleman, but it is not beyond the capabilities of any political party, when it has a meeting with the Prime Minister, to choreograph other events to maximum advantage. That would have been done had the meeting been last week, next week, next month or whenever.
	If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not meet Sinn Fein in case the press might be interested, I suggest that he is unable to distinguish between the great project of trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland and his own petty assessment of what is real politics. I assure him that the meeting was arranged weeks ago. On the decision itself

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State's intervention is now too long and I must insist that we get on with the contents of the Bill.

Quentin Davies: It seems to me that the Secretary of State, in pleading innocence, is saying that the Government were outmanoeuvred by Sinn Fein this afternoon, which is a very revealing admission.

Kevin Brennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise how disappointing it is to listen to his statement? I know that he has abandoned the bipartisan approach, but when we are debating a Bill that contains more than 200 measures to improve the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, it is sad that he confines himself to partisan issues. Does he not have anything to say about the Bill's actual content?

Quentin Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find that I have quite a lot to say about it, and not least about the agenda, hidden or otherwise, under which the Bill has been introduced. It is extremely important that the House should focus on that.

Lembit �pik: Just out of interest, I have tended to assume, for all the differences in the House, that all three main parties have the primary agenda of securing peace in Northern Ireland. If it does not digress too much from tonight's discussion, I would be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks other parties' agenda is.

Quentin Davies: We have been through this before. We all have the objective of peace and I have paid tribute many times to the sincerity of all parties in the House in wanting peace in Northern Ireland, but we differ strongly as to the methods that are likely to produce it. The Government have made some very peculiar errors of judgment, already with disastrous consequences on the ground. It is absolutely clear that it is not we who have abandoned the bipartisan approach. The Government did that, by moving away from the strict lines of the Belfast agreement and making all sorts of new concessions before it had been implemented. That was extremely irresponsible and dangerous.

Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Member of the House to whom I always listen with great attention on Irish matters, but I must first make some progress, as he will otherwise have every justification for saying that I have not grappled with the substance of the Bill.
	Two very obnoxious provisions are buried in the mass of technical detail in the Bill, but 90 per cent. of it or more, by length, covers matters to which we have no fundamental objection of principle, although we have a lot of questions and there are some problematic issues. If the Bill were limited to the provisions covering the arrangements for devolving justice to Northern Ireland and the new measures in youth justice, for people up to and including the age of 17, we would give it its Second Reading and discuss our detailed reservations and proposals in Committee.
	Let me go through those two aspects relatively briefly. We do not merely accept, but are, of course, very much in favour of, devolving justice to Stormontand police affairs as well, but those are not covered in the Bill. However, so far as I know there has never been any suggestion from any party, or any other source, that such devolution should take place before the elections in May 2003. It has always been thought a good idea for the new Stormont Executive and Assembly to have one term of office and experience before we contemplate devolving more power to them.
	There is therefore no need to legislate for these provisions in this Session. The subject could be covered next year, which would clearly be of some advantage, not least because it might then be possible to be more precise about some of the matters that have been left rather vague and open to the Secretary of State's decision by edict or instrument. In my view that has always been an undesirable state of affairs. There is far too much Henry VIII legislation going through under this Government, and it is often justified on the ground that it is impossible to predict the circumstances that will arise in two or three years' time, when the provisions need to be implemented. The nearer we are to the enactment of the provisions, the less weight that excuse has, so we see some advantage in waiting until next year.
	We also have a general concern, because it is important that before we carry out the devolution we should have an opportunity to discuss matters with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to consider the matter even more fully than has been possible over the past six weeks since the Bill appeared.
	In my view, the consultation process that we have mentioned should be triangular, involving the Government and the Opposition in this House, and the parties at Stormont. As we have had the Christmas holidays in between, I do not think that there has been enough time since November for that process to take place to the extent that might have been desirable.

Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that in the first part of the consultation, which the hon. Gentleman described as a long period, the Northern Ireland Office issued statements from time to time commenting on what Northern Ireland politicians had said? For example, there was the idea of taking away the Queen's crest and insignia, which we were told was only a proposal, not something to be seriously considered. All such matters were brushed aside during that period of so many months, so how can it be said that it was really consultation?

Quentin Davies: The House will be grateful for that intervention. I was not around at the timeat least, not in my present role with responsibility towards Northern Irelandwhereas the hon. Gentleman was intimately involved in the discussions. The Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I trust that he will be back shortly; in the meantime, if the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not feel that the consultation process was adequate, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will have taken that on board.
	The second major area covered by the Bill consists of new provisions for child and youth justice, especially reparation orders, community responsibility orders, youth conferences, and increasing the age for those regimes to 17.
	Those are interesting ideas, and as I have already said, the Conservative party is interested in imaginative new ideas for youth justiceindeed, we are interested in imaginative new penal ideas in general. One of the questions that arises is why we are starting by applying those concepts to child justice rather than starting with adults and rolling the process back to children. There is no logic behind doing thatat least, none has been made clear to meand the change might more sensibly take place the other way round.
	We have some reservations about making Northern Ireland the locus for an experiment of that kind. Some of the review's provisions require community leaders or appropriate adults to take part in the youth conferences and other forums to be established by the Bill. There is legitimate concern about the real danger in many areas of Northern Ireland, particularly in the inner cities, that such leaders will themselves be, or will be the nominee of, the local gang or paramilitary boss, be he republican or loyalist. Those responsible for administering the process will no doubt take great care to avoid that corruption of the process, but there might be more confidence in the proposals if they were piloted elsewhere in the countryperhaps in Englandbefore being rolled out more widely. They should not necessarily be started in Northern Ireland.
	It is extraordinary to be told in the review that the system has already operated in New Zealand and that one or two members of the review committee visited New Zealand. They did not produce a report on their visit, or if they did, it has not been thought worthy of publication or inclusion in appendix B of the review. Apart from a few jejune paragraphs describing the position in New Zealand, the review contains nothing on which we can base a judgment about whether we should simply apply to our country an experiment operated there. The complete lack of assessment of results is extraordinary. The review contains no quantitative data, making it impossible to find out from the document how long the regime in New Zealand has been in place or how many children have passed through it, let alone what the results have been or the recidivism rate or any of the other obvious questions.
	The Government's decision to introduce the Bill in the absence of any serious preparation is highly suspect. Is the Bill really intended to provide for the devolution of justice to Northern Ireland? Very probably, the answer is no. It might not be necessary this year, and there might be great advantages in waiting until next year. Is the purpose of the Bill really to provide a new regime for child justice in Northern Ireland? Again, the answer is very possibly no. The system has not been piloted and will be applied in Northern Ireland although there is no particular rationale for adopting that part of the country for the pilot.
	Clearly, there has been none of the fundamental preparatory work that the House of Commons should demand before beginning to take seriously any suggestion that we should alter our system of child justice in any part of the country and adopt wholesale an experiment undertaken at the other end of the world. No proper assessment has been made for the public or for Parliament before asking us to take that decision.

Des Browne: Before the hon. Gentleman suggests too seriously that we are taking a leap in the dark, may I point out that he will be aware from his reading of the implementation plan and other documents published by the Government that we intend to pilot the system of restorative justice in the greater Belfast area, to assess the pilot and to go forward from there? He urges us to pilot the system, and that is what we intend to do.

Quentin Davies: The Minister provides me with a good soundbite: the phrase a leap in the dark sums up the Bill very well, and I thank him for it. He has no defence against the charge that I have just made. His intention is to pilot the scheme, but in Northern Ireland. We think it bizarre, given the troubles in Belfast, to pilot a system of restorative justice in Belfast that will involve members of the community.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman has outlined two motives that he claims the Government do not have for introducing the Bill. What does he believe is the Government's motive for doing so?

Quentin Davies: I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's attention and to know that he will listen carefully to the rest of my speech. An audience of at least one Member will wait in suspense for that important part of my speech. I shall come to that point, but I shall not quite yet be driven off the issue of the preparatory work for the new proposals for youth conferences, restorative justice, community responsibility orders and so forth.
	The hon. Gentleman's intervention has confirmed my feeling that the Government have been thoroughly unbusinesslike about the Bill. One does not decide to change the system of criminal justice for anyone, and least of all for children, without thorough preparatory work. We cannot pass a Bill that takes lots of new powers and sets up many new systems, and then say that we will merely pilot it in Northern Ireland.
	Before we take a decision, we need a thorough evaluation of the New Zealand experiment. The Government appear to have spent a lot of public money on that, even sending people to New Zealand, but we have had no proper analysis of the working of the system in New Zealand. That is surely elementary. What did those people do in New Zealand? I am sure that they had a lovely timeI gather that it is a beautiful countrybut there was a time when people who had a jaunt at the taxpayer's expense were expected to produce some sort of report. If their report was detailed, thorough and convincing enough to make a respectable contribution to our debate, I should have expected it to be published. It has not been published, either in the review or, as far as I know, anywhere else. The fact that the Minister, who is usually quick to intervene, is sitting tight confirms me in my fears.

Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman obviously opposes pilot schemes. Did he oppose or comment on the pilot scheme in Scotland when the poll tax was introduced?

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman will not lead me back to the controversies of the 1980s, and particularly not to a controversy that occurred even before I was a Member of the House. Far from being against piloting, I believe that it should be done systematically and thoroughly. We should not take a decision on rolling out a system until it has been properly piloted.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that, during one of his meetings with my officials, he was given a copy of international research into restorative justice, including in New Zealand. Has he read it?

Quentin Davies: I do not recall seeing the report to which the Minister refers. I should be interested to see it. I have no idea whether it was produced by his officials who went to New Zealand or by others. If that report was germane to the decision to roll this system out in Northern Ireland and to change the law in the way that the Bill proposes, I cannot understand why it was not included in the review or at least referred to in appendix B so that we might have known that it was one of the documents on which the Bill was based.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the supporting documents was the paper I have in my handRestorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A Comparative Review. It includes references to the very matters that he says are absent from the review.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has not given me that report; I have not seen it. It is certainly not listed in appendix B. Perhaps he will point to precisely where it appears in appendix B, to show that we might have known that it existed and been able to ask for it. Page 445 of the review contains no reference to the assessment of New Zealand that he now claims exists. If the Minister wants some time to look at that page, he is welcome to it.
	I have said enough to make it clear that I do not think that the Government can rest their case for the Bill on the provisions relating to either restorative justice or devolution of justice to Northern Ireland.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I know that the point may be becoming tedious to some of his hon. Friends, but I should put the record straight. On page 445 of the review reportthe page to which the hon. Gentleman himself referreditem 10 is the report to which I referred: Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A Comparative Review. I cannot be responsible for the hon. Gentleman's copy of the review report, but if it is missing page 445, he can have mine.

Quentin Davies: What I have asked for and what the hon. Gentleman has not providedhe does not even suggest that it existsis an assessment of the position in New Zealand. I have not seen such an assessmentnor, as far as I know, has any other hon. Member. We ought to read it, and we ought to have a chance to discuss it, before we change the law. My point is made.
	The fact remains, however, that the Government would not have introduced the Bill this year if it were not necessary to camouflage two rather nasty and extremely significant provisions. Many parts of the Billrestorative justice, merits, demerits and what happens around the worldmay be discussed academically, which would be absolutely fascinating, but it represents a Trojan horse for two very nasty provisions: the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance in Northern Ireland and the removal of the royal coat of arms from courtrooms and new courthouses in Northern Ireland.
	The Minister does not like my placing the focus on those two provisions, which is not surprising because they are very momentous provisions. I think that I am right to sayI hope that someone will correct me if I am wrongthat they must be the most overtly, explicitly republican provisions introduced in the House since the time of Oliver Cromwell. Someone cannot be much more republican than to suggest that we break the link between the judiciary and the Crown, that we no longer have the Crown at the apex of our constitution, legislative system, Executive and judiciary and that the doctrine on which the common law has always been basedthat the administration of justice flows from the Crownshould be breached in part of our country: Northern Ireland.

Kevin McNamara: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on two matters? First, the police in Scotland take no oath of allegiance to the Crown, and, under legislation that flowed from the Good Friday agreement, with which he agreed, neither do new recruits in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the Conservative Government supported Britain's joining and subscribing to the European convention on human rights, under which legal decisions come from the Strasbourg court and do not flow from the Crown, and from the Luxembourg courtwhich Mr. Heath took us into, as well as the European Communitywhich do not emanate from the Crown either.

Quentin Davies: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is just thrashing around, desperately trying to find some shield to protect the Government, and his desperation shows. First, he knows perfectly well that I referred to the judiciary. I am not talking about the police, but he tries to switch the discussion to the police. Secondly, he talks about courts set up under international agreements to which we are party. Clearly, that has gone on for a long time. We set up the International Court of Justice at The Hague some time before the first world war. It is obvious that if we set up an international court and are part of the convention, the international court is not subject to the Crown, but under all the systems of law in the United KingdomScottish law, English law and so forththe principle has always been that justice flows from the Crown, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He also knows perfectly well that the Bill will cut that umbilical cord in respect of Northern Ireland, which raises enormous constitutional and juridical questions that he wants to shield the Government from facing up to.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts in this country's judicial system flows entirely from a decision of this Parliament?

Quentin Davies: Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what Parliament grants, it can take away. Parliament is sovereignanother principle that, like justice flowing from the Crown, most of us thought immutable. It is now under attack, at least in Northern Ireland.

Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. Earlier, I was almost tempted to say:
	Be sure your sin will find you out.
	Things come back to haunt us, as we have already discovered from previous interventions, but is not it a fact that, instead of respecting mutual traditions, things have moved further and some people no longer respect the fact Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom under the sovereign?

Quentin Davies: Indeed, that is absolutely true. I am afraid to say that the Government appear to be so embarrassed that the Secretary of State has done something unprecedentedto have absented himself from the Chamber during a debate on a fundamental constitutional issue. Absenting himself from the Chamber and not waiting to hear the Opposition's response in any context, let alone a debate on Second Reading, is pretty unprecedented. I have several questions to ask him, but they will have to be answered by the Minister, if he is prepared to do so.
	I place on record the fact that that is not only an extraordinary discourtesy to the HouseI am certainly not worried about discourtesy to me personallybut it reflects the slighting way in which Government regard Parliament these days. They regard it as something of a burden, a nuisance and less important than other things that they might prefer to do. There could be no more graphic example of that than the Secretary of State's conduct this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is right to say that those provisions raise fundamental constitutional issues. Do the Government glory in making this concession? Are they closet republicans? Do they feel that this would be a wonderful thing to do if only it could be rolled out across the whole United Kingdom and that it is absolutely splendid that they have an opportunity to do so in Northern Ireland, they hope? Are they introducing the provisions more in sorrow, thinking that they reluctantly have to do so in Northern Ireland? To use the Secretary of State's phrase, is this a concession; or are the Government introducing it on its own merits? Perhaps we could have some answers. I should be happy to give way to the Minister, who normally likes to jump to his feet to interrupt, if he has an answer.

Edward Garnier: While my hon. Friend is waiting, may I give him a little reassurance? I broadly agree about the motives behind clause 20(2) and (3), but I have absolutely no doubt that the judges who take the oath in Northern Ireland will deliver justice as dispassionately and with as much sense of justice as any holder of judicial office who has taken the existing oath. We need not worry about the quality of justice that will be provided by judges or holders of judicial office in Northern Ireland, but I wholeheartedly accept the point that my hon. Friend makes about the symbolism of the original oath and the message that the Government are trying to send by removing it.

Quentin Davies: My hon. and learned Friend jumps to his feet to defend the integrity of the legal profession. I hasten to add that I had no intention of impugning its integrity, and I am certain that judges will indeed try to administer justice impartially. Nevertheless, as he will concede, some serious constitutional questions have been raised.
	Let me put those questions to the Minister, who sits on the Government Front Bench in default of the Secretary of State, who ought to answer. The Secretary of State bears the responsibility for introducing the Bill, but he made a long speech, lasting more than 50 minutes, and then walked out of the Chamber, so he is no longer able to answer any question that the House may have. Hon. Members could not have a clearer example of the way in which the Government are treating Parliament. It is absolutely monstrous and absolutely scandalous, and if that is what happens when a party achieves a majority of 200 over the other parties, it is a wonderful example of the working of the Acton principle that power corrupts and greater power corrupts further.
	I shall still ask those questions. If the Queen is no longer to be the apex of our justice system, who is? No one is substituted under the Bill. Will it be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will it be the Prime Minister in a new regal role? Will it be the legal profession itself, enjoying some sort of platonic hegemony by virtue of its own specialised knowledge? Will the Minister resort to the mantra of Marxism- Leninism and say that justice will be done in the people's name? That is remarkable. We are removing the Crown from the apex of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, but the Minister will not tell me what the Government are putting in its place. How can Parliament possibly pass the Bill, which removes the relationship between the Crown and the judicial system in part of our country, without the Secretary of State being here to answer questions and without the Government being prepared to tell us what they are putting in its place?

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: There is no point my giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I want the Government to give me an answer. I do not want them to be saved from answering a necessary question by interventions from their Back Benchers. The Government must respond, because there is simply no way that the House can vote for the Bill tonight unless we have an answer to that elementary question.
	Will the Minister intervene? Does he want me to count up to five? He has no answer; the House can draw a clear conclusion from that.

Tom Harris: rose

Quentin Davies: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He wants to act as a foil to save the Government from complete and utter embarrassment. They do not want to answer the questions, or they do want to tell the House that they have no answers. Ministers are simply sitting on the Front Bench and are not answering the most fundamental question that is raised by the Bill.

Tom Harris: rose

Quentin Davies: No, I have said that I will not give way. I have said that I will not allow anyone to speak for the Government on this particular matter. I will take an intervention from the Minister or from the Secretary of State should he return to the House and fulfil his duties by defending his Bill.

Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, I am very consistent. You have known me a long time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you know that when I say that I will not give way, I will not give way. Normally, I enjoy giving way on such occasions and the hon. Gentleman knows that I often enjoy giving way to him. However, I will not give way to anyone on the Government Benches who simply wishes to obfuscate. The issue cannot and will not be obfuscated. We require an answer from the Government. Who or what will replace the Crown, which is being removed from the apex of the judicial system in Northern Ireland?

Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: Exactly the same goes for the hon. Gentleman. I will take no further interventions from Labour Back Benchers until I get an answer to the most fundamental and pertinent question raised by the Bill.

Des Browne: rose

Quentin Davies: Ah!

Des Browne: To spare hon. Members a repetition of this ill-informed contribution to the debate, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he will find the answer to his question in proposed new section 12 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The words appear in clause 4 of the Bill, which states:
	Whenever the office of Lord Chief Justice is vacant, Her Majesty may . . . appoint a qualified person.
	It is perfectly clear that there is no change to the structure of the judiciary in Northern Ireland or to its relationship with Her Majesty the Queen. She will remain at the apex of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. In the same way as the hon. Gentleman did not get to the appendices in the review, he may not have reached clause 4, but that is the answer.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has, in fact, said that the Bill is complete nonsense. If the oath of allegiance is removed, judges will no longer have to accept that the Crown stands above justice in Northern Ireland. Their allegiance to the Crown will be abolished and they will apparently be beholden to no one. However, the Minister tells us that, for certain purposes, the role of the Crown is being emasculated but retained. What is the logic of that?
	If the Minister wanted to introduce a purely republican measure, he would presumably have cut all the links with the Crown. However, he does not have the courage to do that or does not want to that, so he cuts some links and removes the oath of allegiance that is absolutely key to the relationship between judges and the Crown and that sets it out clearly in a way that no other procedure could.

Tom Harris: rose

Kevin McNamara: rose

Quentin Davies: I may give way in a moment, but the hon. Gentlemen have to be a little patient. They are trying to do a good job of defending the Minister from my strictures.
	If the Minister is suggesting that the Crown still has a role in Northern Ireland as an overarching authority for the judicial system, why is the oath of allegiance being abolished? Why is the symbol of that relationshipthe royal coat of arms in courthousesbeing taken down only in Northern Ireland? If he thinks that is desirable, I return to the question that he refused to answer earlier. Why does he not roll out the measure in the rest of the Kingdom?

Des Browne: I am sure that hon. Members will be relieved to be relieved from the tedium of the hon. Gentleman's repeated assertions, none of which has any basis in fact, in the review or in the Bill.
	In the time that the hon. Gentleman had to prepare for the Billhowever long that wasI take it that he read the review. The arguments for the changes to the oath in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland are set out in the review and they are accepted by the Government. The arguments and discussion about the symbols in courtrooms and outside courts are set out in the review, and they are accepted by the Government. That is the raison d'tre for the Bill. It has nothing to do with republicanism or non-republicanism, and the hon. Gentleman does not know which it is anyway.

Quentin Davies: The Minister has now betrayed himself completely. He is essentially saying that the arguments for the proposals are contained in the review. However, it is not an independent review. It was set up by the Government, packed by the Government and run by the Government. It is the Government speaking to themselves.
	I refer the Minister and the House to the constitution of the review and to paragraph 1.5 on the composition of the review group. The chairman of the group is Jim Daniell. Who is he? He is the director of criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Office and chairman of the review group. The chairman is a civil servant who works for the Secretary of State and is on the payroll of the Northern Ireland Office. The next member is Glenn Thompson, director of the Northern Ireland Court Service, and another, Brian White, is the head of the criminal justice policy division at the Northern Ireland Office. In no sense is this an independent review.

Des Browne: rose

Quentin Davies: I will finish my comments before I give way to the Ministerthen he can answer.
	The whole structure has been an expensive charade that has been pursued at the cost of the taxpayer and has been designed to bamboozle the public. The Government decided what they wanted to do.

Des Browne: rose

Quentin Davies: I will give way to the Minister only when I have finished my argument.
	The Government clearly decided what they wanted to do. They produced and packed the review, and its chairman reported directly to them. Other members of the review group are directly on their payroll. The second half of the charade is that they then produced a response to their review. Who drafted the response? Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us. I suppose it might well have been the director of criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Officehe is the chairman of the review groupor one of the other civil servants on the body. It would be very odd if the director of criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Office had nothing to do with the drafting of a document that admittedly goes out in the name of the Secretary of State. It is a thoroughly incestuous procedure, and it will fool no one.

Des Browne: It is now clear how far the hon. Gentleman read into the review document: he read to the bottom of page 2. If he reads the top of page 3, he will see that there were another five members of the review group, all of whom were independent of Government. The majority of the group were independent, so why did he stop reading the names at the bottom of page 2 and not continue to read those of the five independent people on page 3?

Quentin Davies: Simply because I was reading out the names of the people who report directly to the Minister or to his boss, the Secretary of State. They packed the review group with their civil servants and they nominated the chairman. Of course, they can have one or two outside membersas, indeed, they doto provide the fig leaf, but that is simply part of the charade.
	Another part of the charade relates to a serious abuse. The Government tend to justify the Bill and the particularly obnoxious provisions about the oath of allegiance and about the presence of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms and on new courthouses by saying that they have something to do with the Belfast agreement. I am sure that, like me, the Minister has read the Belfast agreement; I have read it several times. Therefore, he should know that there is nothing in the agreement about these two provisions. It provides for a review of the justice system in Northern Ireland. It also sets up the terms of reference for the criminal justice review in one of the appendices, and I can tell the Minister where that is if he wants to know. Nothing is included about the oath of allegiance or the royal coat of arms. The beginningthe fons et origoand the end of the proposal lie with the Government. They came up with the idea and are responsible for establishing the review group and packing it with their people. They got the proposal from the review group; it has nothing to do with the Belfast agreement. They responded in the review document and put the provisions in the Bill, and they alone can take responsibility for them.

David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's track record on independent reviews since the Belfast agreement is not particularly impartial? Will he comment on the track record of the Patten report, which, under the Belfast agreement, was meant to recommend changes that would receive widespread community support? Instead, however, the Government recommended removing the Royal from the title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is a republican tendency within the Government.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman's last point is all too evident, and it is a cause of concern. The Patten report at least had a greater pretension of being independent. As the Secretary of State said, Chris Patten was not on the Government payroll and not a member of the Government party. He was in a key position as chairman, as indeed is the chairman of this review group, although he is also part of the hierarchy of the Northern Ireland Office.
	The hon. Gentleman's comment on republicanism brings me back to the question that I asked, which has not been answered. If it is desirable to remove the oath of allegiance and take away the royal coat of arms from courtrooms, why is that not being done in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why do the Government not have the courage of their convictionsif, indeed, they are convictions?

Lembit �pik: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory on republicans in the Government. In that context, who will appoint the Advocate-General in the new system, and what will his continuing responsibilities be for Northern Ireland?

Quentin Davies: We had an interesting revelation on that when it was suggested that the Advocate-General might be the same person as the Attorney-General in this country.

Kevin McNamara: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the oath, over which he has taken such grave exception? It states:
	I . . . do swear that I will well and faithfully serve in the office of
	whatever it is
	and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will according to the laws and usages
	I stress the final part
	of this realm.

Quentin Davies: I noticed that, and it shows how mealy-mouthed the Government are. They do not have the courage of their convictions. They have been incapable of explaining the logic of leaving the reference to realm but removing the reference to oath of allegiance. I ask again: what is the logic in that? There is no logic. We have established that clearly.

Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is no such thing as a United Kingdom legal system? The fact that Scotland has had her own legal system for 300 years has not contributed to any great wish for Scotland to become independent.

Quentin Davies: Of course I realise that; indeed, I think that I referred to that earlier. We all know that Scotland has a different legal system. It is based on Roman law and was in place at the time of the Act of Union 1707.

Mark Francois: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Quentin Davies: I will give way, but I cannot take any more interventions because I must make progress.

Mark Francois: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way; I shall be brief.
	My hon. Friend initially put his question to the Minister five or six times, but the Minister sat in his seat looking blank until inspiration arrived from elsewhere. The Government cannot hide behind the review. It is their Bill that is before the House and they must stand or fall by what is in it. They cannot palm responsibility off on others.

Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend scores a bull's eye, as he would know if he had seen the Minister shift in his seat as he spoke. As he says, the Government are responsible for the anomalous mess and the disreputable concessions. They might go three quarters or even 90 per cent. of the way towards republicanism, but they do not have the courage of their convictions and go the full 100 per cent. The Government cooked up the Bill. They were responsible for the review, which they dominated. They packed the review committee with their people and produced their own response. The procedure has been incestuous and I do not believe that it will confuse anyone.
	Why have the Government gone in for this particular exercise? We have established that, and the debate has been a good one. The Government's decision is not based on a conviction, because if the measures were so virtuous and desirable in themselves they would be extended to the whole of the UK. We all know the answer. The Bill has been introduced for no other reason than to provide one more set of concessions to one of the parties in Northern Ireland. Every time we have a Northern Ireland debate, at least one new concession is made and it is always tailored to the same beneficiaryIrish republicanism. It is impossible to get more republican than the Bill. It cannot be a coincidenceor, if it is, it is a revealing onethat the Bill comes before the House on the day when Sinn Fein-IRA MPs are claiming their privileges for the first time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been over that course before and been reproved from the Chair.

Quentin Davies: It was a passing reference, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I remind the Minister, and he does need reminding, why we believe that the course of offering endless concessions in one direction in Northern Ireland is inept, irresponsible and dangerous. First, the concessions are not linked to a counter move by the other side. The Government give away their negotiating currency and, when they run out of that, they try to raise more at the expense of the integrity of our institutionsParliament, the system of justice and the Crown. They then throw away the new concessions without getting a quid pro quo. That is a hopeless way to conduct a negotiation.
	The second problem with the tactic is that, far from speeding up the implementation of the Belfast agreement, which is an objective that we all sincerely share, it can only do the reverse. Sinn Fein-IRA have every incentive to spin out the agony on decommissioning because the longer it is spun out, the more concessions they get from the British Government. That is a lamentable state of affairs.
	The third problem is that by making the concessions all in one direction, the Government are destroying the essential balance that is fundamental to a successful peace process. We will have permanent peace in Northern Ireland only if all communities believe that there is something in it for them. In the case of the Belfast agreement, everyone made concessions and everyone legitimately believed that it contained something that was important and positive for them. That is why the Opposition supported and continue to support the Belfast agreement.
	By moving beyond the Belfast agreement and making a stream of concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA without waiting for it to be implemented, or even insisting on its implementation, other parties are increasingly feeling that they are being made fools of in some way because it is a one-way street. It is not just the Unionist community that is affected, although it is the majority group. What about the Social Democratic and Labour party? After all, the SDLP and its predecessors have for generations persistently and bravely fought for human rights and equal opportunities in Northern Ireland and, quite legitimately, for their ideal of a united Ireland. In doing so they have always stuck to constitutional principles and adopted peaceful methods. The SDLP has acted in the finest traditions of its predecessorsO'Connell, Parnell and Redmond.
	What has the SDLP got? It has not received any great bouquets from the Government. It has not been given a specially crafted concession or a special status here at Westminster. It has not had the Government rolling out the red carpet and allowing it to hold press conferences in Downing street. It is entitled to feel as aggrieved by the Government's handling of the matter as are the Unionist parties. Ultimately, the Government's policy is not only inept but extremely dangerous. They must change course before it is too late.
	Sometimes the Government like to ask me what I would do in their place. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), did so the other day. It is quite simple. First, we would state that there would be no unilateral concessions at all. Nobody would receive concessions without making some effort in return. Concessions might be related to decommissioning. They ought to be related to decommissioning in present circumstances because it is running over a year and a half late, which is a serious matter.
	Concessions might, however, be related to other matters. When the Secretary of State was still here, we discussed policing. I put the question again: why, when the Government are to give bouquets to Sinn Fein-IRA, did they not take the opportunity to say, You can't have this unless you do your part on policing? I am extremely worried about the summer parades season in Northern Ireland. No progress is being made in negotiations, so perhaps the Government could ask for concessions on parades. It is essential that when the Government have something to offer they do not throw it away. They must make sure that it is bargained for concrete progress in the peace process.
	Secondly, we would try to have a programmed process involving all parties, so that everybody knew exactly what needed to be done, when it needed to be done and what the end of the line was. The desperate situation in Northern Ireland today is that nobody knows where the end of the line is. Nobody knows how many more concessions the British Government might have to make before there is further progress on decommissioning. Nobody knows where this process will end, and that is extremely demoralising and worrying.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, I cannot take any more interventions at this stage. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later in the debate.

Des Browne: rose

Quentin Davies: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He would not answer my key questions, and he had plenty of opportunities to do so. I asked him questions five or six times and he would not answer them. Now it is too late for him to intervene because I am about to wind up my speech.
	Finally, we recognise that there may be occasions on which it is a good idea to consider symbolism. Clearly, in this case there is an important issue concerning the royal coat of arms in courtrooms. Our approach would be not to take away an existing symbol but, where it seemed a good idea, to add another. A wonderful example of how that can be done has been set, no thanks to the Government, by the Policing Board, which has decided on a new cap badge and uniform for the new police service. As we know, the Government's contribution was to try to screw that up that by including the wrong photographs in the order put before the House of Commons.
	That is a good example of how it is possible to make progress in accommodating groups and making them feel a sense of ownership of institutions in Northern Ireland without at the same time insulting or humiliating other groups. That is the way forward, but it does not seem even to have occurred to the Government to try to solve the issue of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms on that basis. If it had occurred to them, I trust that we would have heard about it because they would have pursued the suggestion and had discussions. They never even thought of it because their instinct, which is purely destructive and unbalanced, is to get rid of the royal coat of arms. I do not know whether that is because they are closet republicans or whether it is because they just did not think beyond their noses.

Des Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: No, Ministers have had many opportunities to intervene on me.
	I particularly resent, as will the whole House, the fact that the Secretary of State has absented himself from this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That must be the third or fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. He has said enough about that.

Quentin Davies: The Government have no answer to the key questions that I have asked. Why, if these measures are so desirable, are they not being rolled out in the United Kingdom as a whole? Why are the Government continuing to give away concessions without getting anything in return? The Secretary of State is not in a position to answer those questions; the Minister declined to do so when I put them to him, and the House can judge from that whether or not it is right to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman has moved the Opposition amendment?

Quentin Davies: My first remarks, which were made before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were that I moved the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That was not picked up by my predecessor in the Chair. I am glad that we have clarified the point.

Kevin McNamara: Despite my reputation, I welcome today's debate and the Bill as a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to the Good Friday agreement and a further stage in its implementation.
	We are having this debate against a background of considerable violence in north Belfast: the fire-bombing of a pensioner, the abiding cruelty towards the girls and families of the Holy Cross school and the casual murder of a young father, Daniel McColgan. All that reminds us that the road on which we travel is beset with risk and danger, as it has been over the years, but I believe that we have come a long way and that we are making progress.
	The second paragraph in the declaration of support for the Good Friday agreement reads:
	The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust, and to protect the human rights of all.
	At the outset, it has to be said that the Bill begs the question of the continued existence of emergency legislation, the failure to reform the inquest system and the persistence of no-jury courts. It begs the question of the past, and in important respects, particularly on the all-Ireland dimension, it begs the question of the future.
	The past runs like a cancer through the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. One can try, like Lord Widgery, to paper over the cracks after Bloody Sunday, but the truth has to be addressed eventually. The cost of 30 years of delay can be counted in bodies on the streets. It is no use now complaining about the cost of Lord Saville's inquiry.
	The roots of the failure to bring to justice the murderers of Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson lie in the corruption of the police and the criminal justice system by what nationalists believe was a fundamentally flawed and self-defeating practice of counter- insurgencyof pursuing a clandestine war against terrorism through the institutions of the state. It is for historians and politicians to argue about whether that was successful or necessary. One thing we all have to understand is that confidence in the rule of law and the institutions for upholding the law were critically undermined in the process.
	We need a fresh Act and a new beginning. That is the reality that we have to address, and the Government are partly doing so today. The Good Friday agreement envisaged that, following the establishment of the new institutions, within a relatively short time it would be possible to create a new police service, reform the criminal justice system and transfer responsibility for law and order to the Northern Ireland Assembly. In that scenario the promotion of rights would be balanced with the nurturing of a new sense of collective responsibility. There would be no winners and no losers. The process would move on.
	We can argue about who was to blame for delay, but delay has occurred. The Bill is clearly only a half-way house. It introduces a number of important reforms that prepare the ground for devolution, but it does not take that step. Consequently, it is more difficult to establish the balance between rights and responsibilities. I wish to underline at the outset the fact that balance will not be achieved by taking half measures in reform. It should have been introduced sooner, but I welcome the Government's target for devolving policing and justice as quickly as possible after May 2003.
	The legislation that we have now got must create confidence in the justice system across the whole community. For that reason, I question why the Government in their publication on the purpose and aims of the criminal justice system have dramatically departed from the aims of the criminal justice system set out in the Good Friday agreement. The aims, in the agreement, of being
	responsive to the community's concerns and encouraging community involvement where appropriate
	and having
	the confidence of all parts of the community
	do not appear in the text of the Government publication. I have no great disagreement with the aims as published, but regret to say that I can see no reason to jettison the aims that appeared in the Good Friday agreement, which have been voted on by the House and by the people of Ireland, north and south.
	The Good Friday agreement and the criminal justice review that was established as a result both set great store by recognising the centrality of human rights and the framework provided by international human rights standards. However, they have no place in the Government's exposition of the aims of the criminal justice system, although my right hon. Friend partly dealt with that in his speech. It is a major defect that that recognition is not implicit on the face of the Bill. I share that position with the Northern Ireland Assembly, which adopted it by unanimous agreement.
	The Bill should have regard to rights highlighted by the Good Friday agreement, particularly given the recent history of communal conflict, as they address parity of esteem. The right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations and the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means should be given legal expression; consequently, those parts of the Treason Felony Act 1848 that still prescribe that activities such as felony should be punishable by life imprisonment should be repealed.
	I welcome what the Bill says about the rights of the child, which are increasingly important in the international framework for the protection of human rights. I welcome the clauses that deal with youth justice and am pleased that the Government are moving into line with international best practice by bringing 17-year-olds into the orbit of the youth justice system. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides that in all actions concerning children undertaken by
	courts of law, administrative authorities of legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
	In that light, I am surprised that the aims of the youth justice system set out in the Bill are drawn even narrower than the aims of the criminal justice system as a whole. The Government are right to set out the aims of the youth justice system, but it cannot be right that clause 53(1) states:
	The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children.
	There is no reference, despite the three subsequent subsections, to rehabilitating youth and child offenders; that should have been addressed, as its importance parallels that of the principal aim. At a minimum, the Bill should require all persons and bodies within the system to have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child.
	The Bill must pass three critical tests if it is to meet the challenge of creating a fresh start for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Will the structures of the system make it accountable to the community that it serves? Will its composition make it representative of the community that it serves? Will its ethos make it sensitive to the need for tolerance and reconciliation in a divided society?
	On accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions is no less controversial, albeit less public, than the Chief Constable, formerly of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but now of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I should prefer greater accountability and a new name, especially in light of the Finucane fiasco, in which murderers walked free in the interests of national security; Stobie was originally acquitted 10 years ago and Herard, allegedly the man who pulled the trigger on Pat Finucane, was recruited to the security services. I certainly want to ensure greater transparency in decision making when it is decided not to prosecute, especially bearing in mind the decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute the policemen involved in shootings in South Armaghthe alleged shoot-to-kill policywho were to have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I believe that, as a general principle, although not necessarily in those particular cases, that is the attitude of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	On the composition of the new institutions, I am disappointed that the Government have so far failed to bring the component parts of the criminal justice system into the purview of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which would place on them a statutory duty to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that that is the Government's intention when he makes his winding-up speech. I fail to understand why it is not important to ensure that the recruitment and promotion practices of the court service or the prison service should not comply fully with the law on providing equality of opportunity. I fail to see why the composition of the work force should not be monitored to protect against discrimination on the grounds of gender, community origin or any other prescribed basis. I fail to see why a programme of affirmative action with goals and timetables should not be put in place.
	The process of change and renewal requires the bringing-in of new people and influences. There is much greater scope for lay involvement in the proposed Law Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. It should be possible to create neutral symbols for the Northern Ireland Court Service that represent the system's aim of providing justice for all. The issue of members of oath-bound organisations came up in relation to the new police service, and it is no less important for those appointed to judicial offices and other positions where trust is all-important. The judicial oath is incompatible with that taken by the Orange Order; we must deal with that. The judicial oath is improved beyond measure by removing the sovereign from the equation, but for some reason, the proposed text retains the realm where the jurisdiction would serve as well. However, I am sure that we can address that in Committee.
	I find the galloping republicanism, of which my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are accused, rather startling. It would be helpful if, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister would explain how many new courthouses will spring up round Northern Ireland, perhaps like a rash of measles, none having a coat of arms outside. Members of the legal service, such as solicitors and barristers, and other people may find it difficult to have a coat of arms in court. The suggestion that justice comes from the sovereign is a rather quaint ideaa leftover of mediaeval and legal historywhich bears no resemblance to considerations in other modern states, but we retain it.

David Trimble: What the hon. Gentleman regards as something that has survived does one important thing. If justice flows from the Crown, which is at the apex of the justice system, it is divorced from party politics. The Crown stands above party politics. If we wish to indicate that the arrangements that are put in place are not influenced by party politics, as the legal system should not be, we can do that by putting them under the Crown. That is important symbolically in ensuring the independence of the judiciary of political influence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see that.

Kevin McNamara: I very much want the judiciary to be independent of political influence. For example, I wish that there had been independence at the time of the Widgery inquiry into Bloody Sunday, but the Lord Chief Justice, with all his powers emanating from the Crown, took his orders from the Prime Minister, as the revealed minute showed. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Crown may or may not be useful for the purpose that he describes. There are other systems that manage to make the distinction without using the Crown. For people in Northern Ireland who have found the concept of accepting allegiance to the Crown difficult, as well as dispensation of justice under the Crown, it was proper to remove the coat of arms.
	I should like now to deal with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who spoke about concessions being made to Sinn Fein. The people who spearheaded the reforms that are being introduced in terms of the nationalist community were the SDLP and my hon. Friends the Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). The people who demanded the reforms at the height of the unrest, killings, bombings and shootings and asked for the impartial delivery of justice were my friends in the SDLP. Other people may come on board, but my friends in the SDLP were asking not for concessions, but basic rights that should be given to every person. By regarding those rights as concessions, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is not only lifting the position of Sinn Fein in the eyes of the community, but, more importantly, doing a base disservice to the SDLP and to the people who have stuck to the constitutional issues throughout the troubles. I say to him that the more he makes a bogey man out of the provisions and uses the word concessions to describe the basic rights for which the SDLP and others have worked so hard and long while facing such great difficulties, the more he is defeating his own purposes.

Quentin Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the important thing is to make an effort, achieve some mental clarity and distinguish between concessions, which are made reluctantly as the price for achieving something else, and things that are done for their own sake. We have had some discussion about that distinction in recent Northern Ireland debates, as it is very important that people make it. He is trying to manoeuvre me into a position in which I appear to have criticised the SDLP. Far from it. I accept exactly what he said: the aims for which the SDLP campaigned for so many years largelythere may be small exceptions that I cannot think ofrightly qualified as rights. However, the concessions are being made to somebody else: Sinn Fein-IRA. Concessions such as amnesties for terrorists who are on the run or special status for their Members of Parliament do not, by definition, apply to the SDLP, so he cannot possibly distort my position to the extent of supposing that I criticise the SDLP in the way that he describes.

Kevin McNamara: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, he referred to the provisions as concessions to Sinn Fein. I am pointing out that they were being demanded as basic rights by the SDLP even before we had the policy of the Armalite and the ballot box. The SDLP, as Irish nationalists, wanted these rights. The Bill contains the right for people to go into a court and to accept that the justice done there is administered to them as citizens, and not on the basis of dispensation byas they see ita foreign country's monarch.

Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Northern Ireland are no different from the people of Scotland, England and Wales with regard to their need for justice and a system that will create equal opportunity in Northern Ireland for all people? Does he agree that we do Northern Ireland and the Bill a disservice when we speak of concessions to Sinn Fein and the IRA?

Kevin McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for the promotion that he gave me. I agree with him thoroughly. It is very sad that so much of the speech of the Opposition spokesman was taken up on these matters. This is a big Bill; indeed, it is a great reforming Bill. It does not go as far as I want it to, but it is a fresh step and should be received in that light. I hope that, on mature consideration, the Opposition will seek to withdraw their ill-conceived reasoned amendment and give the Government the fair wind that they deserve on the Bill, which can then be improved in Committee.

Lembit �pik: On balance, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, as it implements reasonably faithfully the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Let those of us who have consistently claimed to support the Northern Ireland agreement remember that this debate has arisen directly as a result of that agreement. One of the most important aspects of the debate must be the fact that the Bill finally introduces international standards of human rights in legislation for Northern Ireland. I intend to concentrate on parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have the opportunity to deal with the other parts.
	I should like to deal first with the extremely interesting speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who made some serious criticisms. For example, he criticised the degree to which we had all been consulted and suggested that there had been only partial consultation. In my view, in politics, actions speak rather louder than words. Although, thankfully, I was not in the House to endure the years of the former Conservative Government, my predecessors with the Northern Ireland portfolio have assured meindeed, I have checked this point tonightthat they had almost no opportunity during that time to contribute to legislation before it appeared on the Floor of the House. It was almost a consultation dark age, during which my hon. Friends saw the lights going on and off as the Bills were drafted, but simply felt impotent because the Government refused to consult.
	In that context, any criticisms made by the Liberal Democrats about consultation may have some currency. However, I am very dubious about the hidden agendato use a familiar phrase from the debateof the Conservative party in seeking to find fault with almost every detail of a Bill that one should support in principle, if one steps back from it, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. It is slightly disappointing that the Conservative spokesperson can at the very least be interpreted as having made a party political speech rather than one that sought to contribute constructively to our debate.

Mark Francois: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, he said that he agreed with many aspects of the Bill. He sought to take issue not with a lot of detail but with specific aspects. I listened carefully to what he said and I am pretty sure that that was his approach.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful for that intervention; we are now slowly flushing out the shields protecting the official Opposition's Front Bench. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, I recognise that he makes a degree of sense on that point. None the less, the tone of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford could be interpreted by the casual onlookerif any casual onlookers follow these debates of oursas an unequivocally negative attack on the Bill. My worry is that perception is tremendously important in respect of Northern Ireland matters. In assessing the effectiveness of the measures and of what we are doing, a number of individuals will take their lead from what is being said, which will affect the mood music of the process.
	I have a great deal of personal affection and respect for the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford because he is genuinely trying to drive the Conservative party back towards a more consensual position. I therefore counsel him to consider the message that Conservative Members wish to convey about what needs to happen in Northern Ireland, and the way in which they want to be portrayed in the context of such an important Bill.
	The Liberal Democrats believe that, in time, policing and justice should be devolved to Northern Ireland and the Assembly and that a department of justice should be created roughly along the lines of that in Scotland. We also believe that that should happen in Wales, not because we are rabid republicans but because we are keen on devolution, which is the right way forward. At heart, we believe that, although local politicians should not interfere with police operational matters, local and correctly formed structures could enhance accountability and introduce a sense of cross-community and democratic ownership of the criminal justice system. That is the great strength of devolution and it can work as well in Wales as in Northern Ireland. However, we are discussing the Province tonight.
	When devolution occurs is primarily a matter of debate between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Government. However, I believe that we should adopt the strategy that I have outlined after a substantial period of stability. To be fair to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, he correctly stated that maintaining the independence of the judiciary is of paramount importance in that context. For obvious reasons, Northern Ireland is a highly politicised society and we must be careful to ensure that any measure that we pass here cannot be blown off course by the especially sectoral nature of politics in Northern Ireland. We cannot allow political creep to enter the judiciary.
	Chapter 6 of the report of the review covers the recent development of the role of the judiciary, especially in relation to judicial review and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. The report rightly states:
	All of this reinforces the need to ensure judicial independence from the executive and to enable the judiciary to act, and be seen to act, in a dispassionate way, free from any sectoral influence, real or perceived.
	If the Bill did not provide for that, I should be worried that the Government had missed the point. However, I am glad that clause 1 states:
	Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.
	I shall not go into detail nowI am sure that we shall revert to the matter in Committeebut the Bill appears to provide for safeguarding against the danger that I described.
	How appropriate is it to legislate for devolving judicial appointments before devolving responsibility for all aspects of the justice system to the Assembly? How reasonable is it to do that in stages? Again, hon. Members may have different views on the matter, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford did not specifically comment on that point. I therefore assume that Conservative Members are not especially anxious about staged devolution. It makes sense because we can manage the process without changing too many aspects at once. There is great danger in moving too fast. Furthermore, we might create monsters that we cannot destroy without a great deal of work.
	I welcome the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland. The recommendation for creating such a commission goes a long way towards ensuring a more transparent appointments process. I agree with the parts of the review that call for that. A staged, responsible approach can coherently change the judiciary and the legal system in Northern Ireland without causing too many problems. Furthermore, because transparency is heavily emphasised in the Bill, I believe that we are starting in the right place.
	Paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 3(5) provide that the five judicial members of the commission are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and that the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society of Northern Ireland must each appoint one member of the legal profession to the commission. That shows that representation will be fairly wide.
	However, will the Minister explain why the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are to appoint the lay members of the commission? That contravenes the recommendation in the report to which I have already drawn attention. It suggests a mechanism that is similar to that prescribed in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for appointing the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Why has not such a provision been included to ensure the same independence for the Judicial Appointments Commission? If we took that approach, we could ensure that the lay members reflected the community. The Secretary of State appoints the independent members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board so that they reflect the community. Again, we may wish to consider the matter in Committee.
	The lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission cannot afford to be seen to be political appointees. The Bill contains no guidance for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about the way in which they should appoint lay members. Who is allowed in and who is not? Assembly Members and Members of Parliament are excluded, but what about councillors or members of the police? What about district policing partnership members and those involved in community safety organisations? How will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister ensure that lay members do not suffer a conflict of interest? That is a potential weakness in the Bill, although I am ready to stand corrected.
	Without providing for the guidance to which I referred or for consideration of gender and representation from ethnic minorities, which the report suggests, the Bill lays itself open to a difficulty that is easy to avoid, and perhaps to an element of sectarianism, which has been institutionalised in the Assembly by, for example, the voting system for First Minister. Furthermore, appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission do not appear to be in line with the suggestions of the Good Friday agreement.

Andrew Hunter: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do in this case. Does he recall that the review stated clearly that the lay appointees should reflect the community? How can five people reflect a community?

Lembit �pik: I am stunned and delighted by the good news that the hon. Gentleman and I agree.

Des Browne: On a point of information, the review recommended four or five lay members.

Lembit �pik: I had been about to say that, although I was stunned and delighted that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me, I do not necessarily agree with everything that he said. I escape on a technicality.
	The list of questions, excluding the question about numbers, is salient and requires a reply. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) correctly suggested that one method of ensuring the perception of the independence of the Judicial Appointments Commission was to allow the Crown to make the appointments. I do not entirely agree, not least because I support devolution. However, it is understandable that those who are uncomfortable say that, in the absence of a convincing response, the Crown should continue to be in charge. The Government are obliged to provide an assurance, especially to those who are worried about bias.
	Appointment for five years is perhaps too long because, even if we solve the problems in Committee, we need to review the matter sooner. Does the Minister believe that we should have an interim review, perhaps after one or two years, to ascertain how matters are settling down?
	Moving on to clause 5, I agree that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should have the ability to refer an initial recommendation of an appointment back to the Judicial Appointments Commission. Paragraph 6.107 of the criminal justice review makes it explicit that if the same name were resubmitted to the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, it would have to be accepted. However, that is not made clear in the Bill. As it stands, we do not know whether the commission can reconsider an application only once, or whether the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can refer a recommendation back a number of times. I am pleased with the thrust of the provision, but that point needs clarification. I am also pleased that the officers are to be appointed entirely on the basis of merit, but that does not take away this slight confusion, and we should not leave the matter to be decided by precedent.

Des Browne: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I want to reassure him that the Bill is clear in its recommendation that, the first recommendation having been refused, and following reconsideration, the provisions of the review are to be followed and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be required to accept the second recommendation, even if it relates to the same person.

Lembit �pik: Okay. In that case, I was in error and I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point.
	Clause 20 specifies a new oath. It is right to modernise that practice, and this is a good time to do it. I also welcome the appointment of a local Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, as set out in clause 23. Again, though, the Bill provides little guidance on how that person should be appointed, other than to state that they should have been a barrister or solicitor for at least 10 years. Should the First Minister and Deputy First Minister be able to consult the Law Society, for example, or the General Council of the Bar before the appointment is made? Should they be mandated to carry out that kind of consultation? Or should those bodies be making recommendations to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister? This, too, requires clarification and I would welcome the Minister's perspective on it. If we leave things as they are, this will be established by precedent, and we need to be clear that that is a positive decision with which the First Minister would be comfortable.
	Clause 28 establishes that the Attorney-General for England and Wales should be the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. It is right that someone should adjudicate on whether a piece of legislation is within the competence of the Assembly. Although that is not mentioned in the report of the criminal justice review, it is implied, in terms of what the Bill is expected to achieve. Have the Government given any thought to the working relationship between the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General? Are there precedents involved, or are weand the Governmenthappy to leave that question to be determined by the appointees?
	We also welcome the establishment of a public prosecution service for Northern Ireland. That is essential to maintain consistency through the Bill. I agree with the arguments in the criminal justice review for the need to separate the prosecution function carried out by the police from the organisation responsible for carrying out investigations. Indeed, the report states:
	Securing the independence of the prosecution process for cases at all levels of seriousness should assure the public that decisions on whether to proceed
	with a prosecution
	are made against consistently applied criteria by legally qualified staff.
	All of us will have heard of cases in which the independence of the process between police and prosecution has been brought into question. The overwhelming majority of officers always conduct themselves with probity, but if there is doubt as to whether there is a conflict of interest, or an opportunity for actions that might compromise the justice of the system, that issue will need to be resolved. We have found ourselves in terrible messes in the past, in which individuals have argued that the system itself prosecuted them for a crime that they had not committed.
	We further welcome the establishment of the office of a chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland with a view to carrying out inspections of key organisations in the criminal justice sphere, such as the police, the public prosecution service and the probation board. There is a lack of clarity, however, as to what the chief inspector's role should be. That is highlighted in clause 46(2) and clause 47(6). His or her role should be either to investigate all the organisations mentioned and take an overview of the situation, or to investigate specific problems within an organisation that are likely to have to come to his or her attention through an individual case.
	I am curious about clause 49(3)(b). Why should the Secretary of State be able to exclude parts of the chief inspector's report on the ground that it
	might jeopardise the safety of any person
	if the chief inspector is unable to investigate or review individual cases? That can probably be explained, and the Government's thinking on the matter should be expressed and placed on the record of the House. As it stands, confusion exists and the matter needs to be clarified. I see the Minister nodding, and I look forward to hearing his clarification later.
	I turn to some of the very interesting comments by the Opposition spokesperson that I have not already covered. I was confused by what seemed to be a number of inconsistencies in what he said. He referred to the Government's hidden agenda. When I intervened on him to ask him to clarify that, he said that there was not a hidden agenda but a difference of view with regard to methods. Later on, however, he returned to the theme of the hidden agenda, and I was horrified to learn that, in his view, there was little short of a republican conspiracy going right up to the top on the Labour Back Benchesin the form of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)that is trying to throw away all that is noble and wonderful about the monarchy, and to provide us with the freedom to change the world as we know it.
	I have to make a confession. Well, it is not a confession; it is a boast. I am a true monarchist, and I have always been a monarchist.

Tom Harris: Shame!

Lembit �pik: I hear calls of Shame! coming from the Labour Benches. I shall goad the closet republicans over there by saying that I believe that we have a fine Queen who conducts herself in an honourable fashion, and that the Prince of Wales will one day make an honourable and fine King and I look forward to being one of his subjects.

Tom Harris: rose

Lembit �pik: At this point, I shall give way to the closet republican who, I have spotted on the Labour Benches.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson's comments. Would he care to comment on the failure of the Conservative spokesperson to explain the hidden agenda to which I referred, regarding the youth criminal system and the pilot project to be undertaken in Northern Ireland? The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford mentioned that he was coming to that, but he never got to it and would not take any more interventions. Does the hon. Gentleman have any views on the matter?

Lembit �pik: That shows just how easily youth passes us by. Of course the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was entitled to focus on his primary concerns, and it is not for me to question his omission. Perhaps he was saving that point for his colleague to make, just as I am saving points for my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle to make. Should she catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will expand more on that question.
	The considerations in the Bill are genuinely interesting and stimulating, and it is perfectly appropriate to try them out in Northern Ireland. The honourable republican on the Labour Benches does not distract me from the important point that I am making. I look across at the hon. Members who sit opposite me tonight and I know that there are republicans lurking there who would rob people such as me of my royal birthright, my right to be a citizen and subject of the Queen. On that, I stand four square with Unionism in its simplest and most traditional form and, for once, I feel that I do not have to watch my back.

Kevin McNamara: rose

Lembit �pik: I say to the hon. Member for Hull, North that I will fight, fight and fight again to save the monarchy that I love. I give way to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on this point. We have heard enough on this.

Kevin McNamara: I do not wish to intervene on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say that the hon. Gentleman should look not to the fourth row of the Opposition Benches, when worrying about watching his back, but to the second row.

Lembit �pik: I note the hon. Gentleman's fifth columnist point and it will be dealt with appropriately, but not in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have fears regarding the hon. Gentleman's anti-monarchist principles and I have sought to satanise him, but the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford accused him of being a shield for Ministers. I have often regarded the hon. Member for Hull, North as little short of a Cromwell, bringing his roundhead supporters

Kevin McNamara: Not a Cromwell!

Lembit �pik: Okay. The hon. Gentleman, to use his own phrase, is a fifth columnist, but the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford sees such a republican and Front-Bench conspiracy that he chooses to offend the hon. Member for Hull, North, as we can see from the rage seething within him.
	I have raised concerns, but in no sense can the Bill be regarded as a conspiracy to pander to the republicans. Any objective analysis surely shows that, even if aspects need to be improved and amendments need to be made, the Bill is a genuinely progressive effort to create independent, free-standing, transparent and effective human rights oriented legislation in terms of justice for the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is why I am dubious about the claim made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford.
	We have heard a great deal about how the Bill represents giving up sovereignty and losing the Queen's right to own and run all that she surveys, but that shows deep misunderstanding of what it will do. I am not joking now: for the Bill to be republican oriented legislation that detaches Northern Ireland from Her Majesty's empire, it would have to detach the prosecution service, the inspectorate and the judiciary from Crown involvement. Let us consider the Bill. It does not do that, but instead ensures that the Queen will appoint the Advocate-General and the Advocate-General will still be in charge of the reserved matters involving international relations, defence, tax and national security.
	Of course, Stormont will appoint the Attorney-General, but the Attorney-General and the Advocate-Generalthat is a royal appointmentwill appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. There will be devolution, but there will also be an intimate relationship between that appointment and the existing structures.
	Let us consider the inspectorate. The Secretary of State, acting for the House and, by implication, the Queen, will appoint the chief inspector with the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. The chief inspector will appoint the inspectors. Once again, the Secretary of State will be intimately involved in appointments. If I understand the procedures correctly, those appointments will not be devolved outside the existing system.
	Let us consider the Lord Chief Justice. The Prime Minister will consult the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but, ultimately, the appointment will be made by the Queen. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must advise the Queen of appointments to the judiciary. Perhaps that is a formality, but they must do so none the less. There is sufficient assurance for me, as a non-republican, that the Bill does not dismantle existing structures and will not send Northern Ireland sailing off into separate republican status, so I am comfortable that that should not be a key issue for tonight's debate. Of course, hon. Members may draw their own conclusions.
	I refer to the Opposition's reasoned amendment. Once again, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford confused me. He said that he is not opposed in principle to the legislation, yet the amendment, which carries his name, says:
	This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm.
	If I understand that correctly, he opposes an element of his own amendment. Perhaps he is considering whether to vote for it or not.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood me, as he will discover if he reads Hansard tomorrow morning. I said that we do not oppose in principle 90 per cent. by length of the Bill, which covers devolution of justice to Northern Ireland and the establishment of the new restorative justice for child offenders. We are, of course, very much opposed in principle to the two pernicious points buried in all that, to which I drew particular attention: the provisions relating to the oath of allegiance and the royal coat of arms in courtrooms.

Lembit �pik: Okay. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting him and thank him for his clarification, because it is indeed important clarification. It shows that the Conservatives oppose the Bill in only two key areas of 294, which is a much better hit rate than 90 per cent. Were I even 90 per cent. satisfied with legislation, I would probably vote for it. Were I 98 or 99 per cent. in favour, as it seems the Conservatives are, I would not table a reasoned amendment saying that the legislation is wrong and encourage hon. Members to vote against it.

Quentin Davies: Now I am able to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not bother to interrupt his point about a hidden agenda, but I said that those two pernicious provisions are the hidden agenda in a large Bill that deals with other matters. Therefore, we are right to focus on that unacceptable double kernel.

Lembit �pik: I am even more confused. I may have a rogue copy of the reasoned amendment, but all hon. Members can see that it says, in black and white:
	This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm.
	If the hon. Gentleman expects us to accept that those two key points are sufficient grounds for us to believe that Northern Ireland's justice system is genuinely, not theoretically, being detached from the existing structures in the rest of the UK, he must also explain why he does not believe that Scotland is already a republic. Scotland has far greater autonomy and is far more detached from the Crown than Northern Ireland will be following any conceivable change under the Bill, even if it is implemented by a fanatic. The hon. Gentleman may still think that he can vote for the reasoned amendment, but I ask other hon. Members to read it for themselves and think about what message the Conservatives are putting out.
	My other concern about the reasoned amendment involves the words
	and because it represents a further stage in the policy of unilateral and unbalanced concession to republicanism in Northern Ireland.
	I have made the body of my points perhaps slightly lightheartedly, but I make a serious point here: the Conservative party is increasingly unclear about where it stands on devolution. Very recently, a Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly said that there should be more devolution to the Assembly and other Conservatives believe that more rights should be given to devolved Assemblies. Is it now Conservative policy to support devolution for Wales, and perhaps more so for Scotland, or to oppose it?
	If the Conservatives accept that at least a proportion of them support Scottish and Welsh devolution, why are they so afraid of it for Northern Ireland? I suggest that they want to imply a conspiracy that does not exist. The Conservative party needs to clarify its strategy on devolution and, if it does, it will be able to play a far more constructive role in debates such as this.
	Let me in all humility say that I am not here to lecture the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, who has more years of experience in the House than I do, nor do I cast any negative aspersions as to his intent. However, if the hon. Gentleman and his party are serious in their support for the Good Friday agreement, they should think about the messages that they are sending. He has said that the Conservatives were pulling out of the bipartisan agreement, and that was implicit in his remarks in this debate. With measures such as the Bill it is hard to see what that means. Does it mean that, de facto, the Conservatives will oppose every piece of legislation, even if it has merit? We have been told that, even if they agree with 90 per cent. of the legislation, they will oppose it.
	I can assure the House that the bipartisan arrangement continues, but it is between the Government and the Liberal Democrats. Not long ago, I was encouraged when the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his hon. Friends were so persuaded by the Liberal Democrat arguments that they chose not to vote against the extension of the amnesty for decommissioning weapons. It was to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he showed bipartisanship at least towards the Liberal Democrats. I ask him once again to show the reserve and judgment that he showed on that evening. Can he honestly look himself in the mirror and say that by voting against the Bill he is making Northern Ireland a more just place?
	The Bill has limitations and weaknesses, which I have asked the Minister to deal with, but it is fundamentally a good measure. I should be very surprised if anyone who, in the fullness of time, sees the intent of the Bill being implemented would disagree.

Eddie McGrady: My party has worked for many decades to have a review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, primarily because of its evident flaws and because it did not have the support of the entire community. It is not for me to go into the pros and cons of that, I merely to declare that this issue was on our agenda long before the Good Friday agreement and long before the review and the Bill were published. I would like to think that the substance of the part of the Good Friday agreement pertaining to criminal justice came from the papers, attitudes and arguments that we used at that time.
	The criminal justice review and the Bill are not a destroying mechanism, but rather a reviewing, modernising mechanism that will bring our system into the 21st century. I hope that it will show many other jurisdictions that, out of the chaos in Northern Ireland and the horrors and injustices that we have witnessed, a judicial system can be produced that is the envy of all who observe it.
	It was with great sadness rather than anger that I heard the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) try to divert the debate from the reality of the situation by means of some cheap publicity and point scoringI do not like saying that. The Conservatives have tabled an amendment, which says that the Bill represents
	a further stage in the policy of unilateral and unbalanced concession to republicanism in Northern Ireland.
	That it definitely does not do.
	If the hon. Gentleman wants proof of that, he need not listen to me. He should examine the work of the Assembly's ad hoc committee on the review and the draft Bill. That committee contained members of the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, Sinn Fein, the Democratic Unionist party and the other minor parties, none of whom said that this was a republican plot or a concession to republicanism. There was a great deal of consensus on the joint report, which contained valid, constructive criticism of the Bill and suggested how it could be improved so that the judicial system could be improved. At no time in any of the comments made at any of the meetings of that multi-party committee was there any implication or declaration that this was a republican agenda. We all know what the extreme republican agenda is in Northern IrelandI describe myself as a republican, but that description has been besmirched by violence over the years to such an extent that I can no longer use it without paragraphs of clarification.
	In our consideration of the Bill, my party wants to cover four major areas. We will deal with the Bill only in general points, because I took note of what the Secretary of State said, and it is on the record that this is an on-going review process. The Assembly's report will be part of the review that the Government are taking forward into Committee and out of it.
	The four points that highlight our attitude to the Bill could be summarised as a fully accountable judiciary, an independent prosecution service based on disclosure, the enshrinement of human rights in the justice service, which has been touched on by several hon. Members, and the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission, which we hope will have a majority of lay members, and we shall table an amend to that affect. We also hope that the chairman of the commission will be a lay person.
	We are committed to the principle of ownership of the administration of justice by the community that it is serving. Unless the community right across Northern Ireland has a sense of proprietorship of the judicial system, the process will remain flawed. We are looking for a more fundamental review.
	Many of the headings have already been touched on, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke at length on the youth provision, so that topic has been adequately covered. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about my party and its history, and about me.
	I should like to comment on restorative justice. The Assembly's ad hoc committee gave much consideration to the innovative idea of restorative justice, to which everyone in the community can contribute, and which is important for the prevention and cure of juvenile crime. We felt that new approaches were required. There was agreement that the various provisions for restorative justice were not as clear as they could be, were sometimes vague, and certainly required clarification.
	We want to be assured that there is transparency in the appointments system, and that the judiciary reflects that. All aspects of the appointment system must be open, and must be seen to be just and caring. It should have some reference to broad representation of the community as a whole, although not through precise diktat.
	We would like to think that the Judicial Appointments Commission will not just advise, but will make appointments. Unlike the current system, the judicial and legal membership of such a commission should not have undue power and influence through their numbers, and should not impinge on the independence of the appointments.

David Trimble: I am sorry to be a little dilatory in making this point, but unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, he said that the Assembly's ad hoc committee on the criminal justice review was favourable to the concept of restorative justice.
	The committee expressed concern about the whole area of restorative justice, considering that further work was required
	to take on-board the experiences of existing restorative justice programmes . . . determined that the proposed Standing Committee on Criminal Justice could further investigate this crucial area of reform.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, the committee tried to operate on the basis of consensus. On that point, it was very cautious.

Eddie McGrady: There was indeed a degree of caution, but there was no rejection. There was, in fact, a seeking of clarification, and of better ways of accomplishing it. Although, as several other passages in the report show, the ad hoc committee was not always unanimousthe parties indicated their separate differencesthere was a consensus in favour of achieving a new beginning in the criminal justice system. Indeed, if I remember rightly, not one amendment was tabled when the report reached the Assembly, and not one vote was forced. That was the extent of what I will call co-operation, intended to achieve the best possible result.
	The Minister, and the Government, should take on board the concerns, differences, suggestions and criticisms presented by the divers parties constituting the ad hoc committee, and incorporate what was agreed in the Bill by way of Government amendments reflecting the wishes of the people whom the judicial system will serve. What better yardstick could there be than cross-party consensus?
	The question of symbolism is a thorny question, which distracted the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. For my party, the guiding principles are parity of esteem and parity of symbolism. At best that can, perhaps, be achieved through a degree of neutrality. Opposition Members may not know that the symbols of state, such as flags and emblems, have been so grossly abused in Northern Irelandused not as symbols of the sovereign or the state, but as party political symbolsthat they do not attract the esteem, respect and regard that they should attract, because they have been besmirched for decades by party connotations of the worst sort. We are trying to approach these delicate, sensitive issues by way of understanding; perhaps some neutrality could be introduced as well.
	A short time ago it was said that we would never be able to acquire a symbol for the new police force, and that that would be the most divisive aspect of the board of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It took precisely 10 days to achieve, with the agreement of the whole board and, to a vast extent, that of the public. Many of us do not like this little bit, many of us do not like that little bit, but I think it fair to say that this is now accepted as a reasonable symbol of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps we should be striving for the same objective to deal with the problems that emblems give us in the Northern Ireland Court Service.
	We are not entirely satisfied that the proposals for the prosecution service will involve full accountability. I think that we want a system rather similar to the Scottish procurator fiscal system. The Northern Ireland committeeI have referred to it constantly, but it serves as a useful baselinesays that
	greater transparency should be a feature of the decision-making process of the new Public Prosecution Service.
	That does not suggest that the reasons why cases do not result in prosecutions should always be disclosed. We are arguing for a presumption that disclosure will be made, except when it could cause injustice and prevent the protection of victims and others.
	Much has been said about the future of the devolution of reserved matters after the elections of 2003. That represents a relatively short time in the political history and experience of any country. I think that the amendments presented by the community of Northern Irelandparticularly through the Assembly's report, although my party will table amendments that we think will improve the modernisation of criminal jurisdictionwill be presented with some justification, and with some clarity.
	Let me say this to Opposition Front Benchers, in the light of what was said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and in the light of the amendment: if the House observed the exhortations of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and rejected the Bill, it would send the very message that the hon. Gentleman wants not to send. How crazy can we get? I know that it is a lot for a Back Bencher to ask of the opposite side, whether Government or Opposition, but sanity dictates that the amendment be withdrawn.

Andrew Hunter: I do not agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and I hope he will bear with me if I explain why later. First, I ask him to accept that Opposition Members are not indulging in cheap publicity or political stunts. We object to the Bill on a point of principle so fundamentally important to us thatI understandwe will oppose its Second Reading, although some parts may have merit and others may deserve scrutiny in Committee. So serious is that point of principle that I feel it would be wholly wrong of us to support the Bill.
	As with a number of other developments in Northern Ireland, when it comes to criminal justice there is an official and an unofficial context and background. The official context and background of the Bill were explained by the Secretary of State: it is the policing and justice section of the Belfast agreement, particularly paragraphs 4 to 7, and the subsequent work of the review group. Those who accepted the agreement will therefore have accepted those paragraphs as well, and may not be over-surprised by what has emerged from them.
	Those of us who had reservations about the agreement held them for many reasons, just one of which arises from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the agreement. It was by no means our main objection; it was just one of them. Our argument was that national systems of justice are the responsibility of sovereign states and not automatically the business of neighbouring states. Obviously, the exercising of national sovereignty can extend to and include negotiating with neighbouring states, but it was arguably wrong in principle of the Government, in paragraph 6, to commit themselves in advance and unconditionally to discussing with the Irish Government the implementation of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland criminal justice review group. It was certainly wrong in principle of the Government, in paragraph 7, to commit themselves in advance and unconditionally to consulting the Irish Government before devolving within the United Kingdom responsibility for policing and justice issues. Those are rightly and properly matters for the United Kingdom Government.

Mike Gapes: What the hon. Gentleman says confirms his long-standing opposition to the Belfast agreement. Paragraph 7 was agreed to by his party as an Opposition party, by the Government, by the majority of the people in Northern Ireland and in the referendum in the Republic. He is just restating his long-standing position. The reality is that his side lost the referendum, and the Belfast agreement was passed by the House and supported by the people of Northern Ireland.

Andrew Hunter: I rather regret that I gave way for that somewhat meaningless intervention, which does not take the debate any further forward. My views of the Belfast agreement are known and irrelevant to this debate, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would no doubt advise if I were to embark upon announcing them.
	That then was the official context and background of the Bill. As for the unofficial context and background, at least of key parts of the Bill, they are perhaps best summed up in the words of Brian Cowen, the Irish Foreign Minister, in a leaked Northern Ireland Office document that was first printed in the British press in May 2000. Mr. Cowen was quoted as saying:
	Beyond the constitutional acceptance that Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom, there should be no further evidence of Britishness in the governance of Northern Ireland.
	It was therefore only a matter of time before the Government made their formal move to neutralise constitutionally the institutions, structures and procedures of justice in the Province.
	The Bill should be seen in its wider context. When the Minister launched the draft Bill last November, he rightly spoke of the imperatives of fairness and impartiality. Those are, or should be, at the heart of any criminal justice system. Moreover, as qualities of justice, they are absolute and timeless, but he muddied the waters somewhat by also speaking about delivering a
	modern, progressive and forward-looking
	system of justice. If he regards the Bill as progressive, we are entitled to ask in which direction he thinks it is progressing. If he thinks it forward-looking, we can likewise ask what it is looking forward to.
	The erosion of the cultural, historical and constitutional Britishness of Northern Ireland is a reality. Further manifestations of it are found in the Bill. Many people see it as another step in establishing a de facto united Ireland, so that a de jure united Ireland is not a quantum leap into the unknown but merely the formal acknowledgment of a reality that has already been created.
	There is no question of a hidden agenda: it is clear from Government words and writing. There are fears that the Bill plays its part in the Government's reform and harmonisation programme, which is central to their programme towards a united Ireland.
	On judicial appointments, hon. Members will know that the appointment processes in Northern Ireland are broadly similar to those in England and Wales at the more senior levels. The differences at less senior levels reflect the different court systems in the two jurisdictions.
	The Lord Chancellor has been responsible for making or advising on all judicial appointments since 1973. As the review group commented at paragraph 6.16:
	The transfer of these responsibilities to the Lord Chancellor was driven mainly by a desire to secure and demonstrate the independence of judicial matters and courts administration from any political office.
	The proposal now is that political responsibility and accountability for judicial appointments should lie with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They will take over responsibility for making recommendations to the Queen for all appointments to the level of resident magistrate and for making appointments below that level.
	There will be a Judicial Appointments Commission, but the presence of lay people on that body, and their number, are a concern. It is legitimate to ask what pressures or influences they may be subject to, or what pressure they may bring to bear.
	The key test of any judiciary must be that people are appointed on merit. Leaving appointments largely in the hands of the judiciary and the two legal professions provides greater opportunity for ensuring that the key test is merit, rather than some form of political balance or correctness. Where a new department of justice is being created and where the role of the Lord Chancellor is being removed, important questions should be asked about who makes decisions about the legal profession. Independence from political interference must be preserved or, even better, enhanced and reinforced. I am far from convinced that in that respect the Bill has got it right.
	Much has been said already with regard to the royal coat of arms and the judicial oath. The Bill not only undermines the Britishness of Northern Ireland, but in its implementation, challenges the constitutional status of the Province. In the words of the amendment,
	justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm.
	Constitutionally and traditionally, the monarch is the source and fountain of justice in the United Kingdom. That is unaffected by devolution in Wales and Scotland, and it should be unaffected by devolution in Northern Ireland.
	Throughout the United Kingdom, the sovereign's majesty is deemed always to be present in court. It was in recognition of that that the practice of displaying a royal coat of arms behind the judge's chair evolved. The royal coat of arms symbolises the monarch as the source and fountain of justice, and it symbolises the presence of the sovereign's majesty.
	The criminal justice review group rightly argued that the removal of all symbols from courthouses would be inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position, but it was wholly illogical of the group then to argue that removing the royal coat of arms from inside courthouses while maintaining them outside would be consistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom. It is illogical because the significance of the royal coat of arms inside a courthouse is greater than its significance outside. Its removal from the inside of a courthouse is therefore a far greater challenge to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The review group acknowledges the principle that removing the royal coat of arms would be inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position, but proposes a course of action that fundamentally challenges that constitutional position.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has revealed by his contribution to the debate so far a level of research and understanding of the position that is significantly greater than that revealed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. To that extent, I congratulate him. The review board took a lot of advice on the constitutional implications of its recommendations and was satisfied that the consequences are not as he says they are.
	Perhaps from his researches the hon. Gentleman can tell the House how long the constitutional position of putting symbols in courts has been established throughout the United Kingdom. When I started practising in courts in Scotland, by no means all of them displayed royal symbols on the walls.

Andrew Hunter: On the Minister's first point, I was making the point that I disagree profoundly with the conclusion reached by the review board. He summarised the board's findings, and I am trying to explain why it was wrong.
	I do not know precisely when the practice of displaying the royal coat of arms started, but I know of courthouses dating from the end of the 17th century where, if I recall correctly, Charles II's coat of arms is to be found. I believe that the practice may have started with or after the restoration in 1660.

Martin Smyth: Perhaps Scots thriftiness is one reason why the royal coat of arms is not displayed in every court.
	One of my constituents, who has practised for 20 years, has never heard any objection from any side to the presence of the coat of arms in the Northern Ireland courts. Rather than doing away with it, should we not encourage people to recognise it and accept with respect what it stands for?

Andrew Hunter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative intervention. I certainly agree with him.
	The Bill's proposals on this matter are indications not of Northern Ireland's legal and constitutional Britishness but of the fact that Northern Ireland is being moved by the Government, quite deliberately and in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, into some sort of constitutional neutrality. The Secretary of State said in a speech quite recently that he did not want a cold house for Unionists to be created. To allow the Bill to become law will create arctic conditions for Unionists.
	It is relevant to recall that political developments in nationalism in Scotland have not led to the removal of the current symbols of justice. The Scottish court system has its own distinctive characteristics but devolved government has brought about no such changes.

Des Browne: When the hon. Gentleman draws Scottish comparisons, he should be complete about it, and two of them are very important to his argument: first, judges are appointed on the recommendation of the First Minister in Scotland, without any of the constitutional implications that he infers; and secondly, it is now proposed to appoint a judicial appointments commission there, without any of the constitutional implications that he says there will be for Northern Ireland.

Andrew Hunter: It is early days to draw such conclusions. If the political composition of the Scottish Parliament changes significantly, the Minister may find that the very problems that he says do not exist will emerge in some force.
	If enacted, the Bill will politicise judicial procedures in Northern Ireland as never before. In attacking the symbols of Britishness, it undermines Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom. It harmonises the legal system of Northern Ireland with that of the Republic of Ireland on an unprecedented scale. It incorporates a restorative justice system that could fall into the hands of terrorist organisations or otherwise be influenced by them. And it creates a new layer of quango and bureaucracy.
	I have no doubt at all that the Bill should be resisted.

Tom Harris: Before the start of this debate, I read for the first time the exact wording of the amendment. The Conservative party is making a major mistake by continuing, or even accelerating, its break from the cross-party consensus that prevailed through Conservative and Labour Governments.
	The complaint is that the Government are making
	unilateral and unbalanced concessions to republicanism.
	Such language is not only inflammatory and irresponsible: it is unworthy of any party that aspires to lead the Northern Ireland peace process in government one day, and I hope for the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland that that day is a long way off. Such language is more suited to student politics than to a debate in the House. I have little doubt that, had the Conservative party been in government at any point over the past five years, the peace process as we know it would already have been dead and buried.
	After berating the Secretary of State for not being in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has now left the Chamber.

Lembit �pik: The peace process might have been dead and buried, or a Conservative Government might have made exactly the same decisions as the Labour Government have made.

Tom Harris: I agree: being in government often concentrates the mind on a more responsible attitude, and I hopeno one can be surethat that is what would have happened.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford spent some time describing what he would do as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but neglected to mention two of the Government's achievements, which he clearly has no regard for and no ambition to emulate: a three-year IRA ceasefire and the decommissioning of a substantial quantity of illegally held arms. Make no mistake: the Conservatives may claim to support the Good Friday agreementand God knows they mention it often enoughbut they are most definitely opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process. I hope that they will reconsider their strategy on the issue in the very near future.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for introducing the Bill and for their wider efforts in pushing forward the peace process. The Bill represents yet another Labour party manifesto commitment honoured and another piece of the Good Friday agreement implemented.
	I am disappointed that the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) are not here in the ChamberI understand that they are in the Palace of Westminsterto debate an issue that is of great importance to their constituents as well as those of the hon. Members who have chosen to be here to represent those who elected them.
	When almost everything we hear about developments in Northern Ireland revolves around terrorism, intimidation and weapons decommissioning, it is easy to forget that here is a part of the United Kingdom where normal life must go on and is going on, and that Government policy in Northern Ireland goes beyond the headlines to address the everyday concerns shared by people of all communities. The Bill is no less important to the people of Northern Ireland for the fact that it deals with measures that are not especially headline grabbing.
	I warmly welcome the Bill and I want to raise a few pointssalient ones, I hopeabout it. In England and Wales, and in Scotland, the development of the criminal justice system has been the subject of constant though often understated debate, and where change has been necessary, appropriate legislation has followed. The Bill is the first major criminal justice reform in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years. I accept that that is an illustration of what happens to a community that is thrown into chaos and violence, and political debate focuses almost exclusively on questions of security, nationality and religion. I hope that the House will welcome the Bill as a sign that normal politics in Northern Ireland has been, if not resumed, at least rescheduled for a date in the not-too-distant future.
	I especially welcome the establishment of the rights of the victims of crime, who will be kept informed, for example, of the time scale for the release of offenders. Such information, I understand, has been available to the victims of terrorist crimes, who are informed about the release of members of paramilitary groups, and I am sure that this reform is welcomed by the whole House.
	Most important of all, the Government have made known their desire for responsibility for criminal justice to be devolved to where it belongsthe Northern Ireland Assemblywithin a definite time scale.
	The Bill makes it clear that the future development of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland must be seen as part of a politically neutral process. That is fundamental to many of the reforms that have taken place since the Good Friday agreement, and has been the cornerstone of the Government's policy. I have always believed that in Northern Ireland it is utterly impossible to please all the people all the timebut at the very least, if we are displeasing everyone at the same time, we must be doing something right.
	As for symbols and oaths, I accept that it is always difficult for those of us who do not live in Northern Ireland to make judgments on those who have lived with terrorism and violence in their communities for their whole lives. However, let me say in all sincerity that it is difficult to understand why the question of emblems has to take up so much of the debate, and why it took up so great a proportion of the speeches made earlier from the Conservative Benches.
	I appreciate that, in Northern Ireland, history is just not a record of the past, but, although invisible, almost a living thing, which is at the table whenever any party, Government body or courthouse meets.

David Trimble: There is a very simple answer, and it has nothing to do with delving into the past; we only have to consider the past three years. The Belfast agreement recognised that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, but the problem is that since then the Government have not been implementing the agreement; they are failing to implement it. It is as simple as that. If the Government were keeping to the agreement in that respect, the Bill would have a much easier passage.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but I am afraid that I disagree with him. I believe that the Government are implementing the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and have worked tirelessly to keep the peace process on track. They must be commended for that.

Mark Francois: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Bill is implementing the Good Friday agreement, will he tell the House what paragraph of the agreement says that the royal arms will be removed from courthouses in Northern Ireland?

Tom Harris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a commitment in the Good Friday agreement to review the justice system[Interruption.] That is exactly what the Bill is doing. There was also an understanding in the agreement that, following the positive votes in the referendums, there would continue to be as normal a process of governance as possible. Not everything to be produced before the House of Commons was to be specifically included in the Good Friday agreement. This, however, is specially provided for.
	We are here tonight to talk about yet another major step forward for the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill will have a profoundly positive impact on civil life there. I acknowledge that whether there are crowns or other such symbols inside or outside courts is important to some Opposition Members and their constituents, but we in the House would do the people of Northern Ireland a disservice if we dwelt on such a matter at length. It is not the most important issue facing us tonight. The Bill is about addressing the real fears and problems of real people. It is not about symbols, and although everything that happens in Northern Ireland is done within a historical contextI respect the history that has been referred to earlierwe cannot allow history to dictate our actions or debates.
	I completely condemn the wording of the amendment proposed by the Conservative party. It is nothing short of a disgrace, and I hope that the whole House will show its contempt for the amendment when it is put to the vote later.

Lady Hermon: I apologise to hon. Members for not being here at the very beginning of the debate for the Secretary of State's opening words; it overlapped with a commitment that I had to a Committee, and I came here as quickly as possible afterwards.
	Let me make it clear from the beginningI am sure that the Minister will be relieved to know thisthat the Ulster Unionist party broadly welcomes the efforts made in the Bill to make the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland more effective, transparent and accountable. As the Minister will no doubt know, there is great frustration about the inefficiencies of the present system, and we hope that the modernisation proposed in the Bill will address such problems.
	We are also particularly pleased by the Government's commitment to devolve both policing and justice matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly after the next scheduled Assembly elections in May 2003. That reflects the Government's confidence both in the continued stability of the Assembly and in the calibre of its Members, both of which I welcome.
	We are therefore pleased at the prospect of the new Department of Justice being established under a Minister of Justice with responsibility for the Court Service, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the probation service and the new juvenile justice agency.
	Before examining the Bill in more detail, I should like to endorse the sentiments in paragraph 12.2 of the review group's report and pay tribute not only to those who have served in the Northern Ireland Prison Service but to those who have served in the wider criminal justice review system and have given such dedicated service over 30 years, despite threats and attacks by paramilitaries.
	There are many positive elements in the Bill. First and foremost, given our party's commitment to human rights, equality and freedom from all forms of discrimination, including positive discrimination, we are pleased to see that the Government have agreed that those themes should be central to the criminal justice system.
	It is also pleasing to see that the opening clause gives a guarantee that
	Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.
	It is that emphasis in clause 1 on the continued independence of the judiciary that I particularly welcome, as it rightly recognises their independence to date.
	Of the other positive aspects of the Bill, I draw particular attention to the progressive approach to juvenile justice. We should all agree that, where possible, we should endeavour to avoid processing and reprocessing young people within the criminal justice cycle, without providing them with the opportunities to escape from criminal activity.
	Attached to the sphere of juvenile justice is the idea of restorative justice, as outlined in the criminal justice review. The genuine concerns of many people in Northern Ireland about how and where restorative justice schemes would operate in practice, and their interaction with the criminal justice system, will be allayed to some extent by the commitment to accredited systems of restorative justice.
	That would tie those schemes and initiatives into the mainstream criminal justice and juvenile justice systems. We also welcome giving victims a voice and involving them in that respect. Concerns would be further eased if the Minister could tell us tonight what the Government intend to do to stop unaccredited community justice systems operating, and to prevent them from attempting to involve themselves in the punishment of young offenders.
	The Minister will know that recent figures for punishment attacks showed an alarming increase last year, compared with 2000. The Government cannot afford to be complacent about the 25 per cent. increase in such attacks, or about the fact that it is loyalist paramilitaries, particular the Ulster Defence Association, who have been responsible for two thirds of the overall total.
	We agree that it is accepted practice nowadays for investigatory and prosecution functions to be conducted by separate organisations. On the plane to London today, I was pleased to read in the Minister's article in the Irish Newsgood article, terrible photographthat the new Director of Public Prosecutions will operate regionally, with offices open throughout Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government, in embarking on such a large expansion, will take on board the logistical and funding lessons to be learned from a similar transition in England and Wales.
	The creation of a chief inspectorate of criminal justice for Northern Ireland is particularly welcome. It is essential that the inspector should be able to consider all aspects of the criminal justice system and all organisations that perform functions within it. It is to be regretted, therefore, that the list of organisations in clause 41 is not comprehensive. Even with the creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland, prosecution functions will continue to be carried out by a variety of other bodies, includingthis will come as news to some hon. MembersConsignia, the Financial Services Authority and, last but certainly not least, the office of the police ombudsman. Will the Minister undertake to review that point and to consider expanding the list in clause 41 to ensure that the inspectorate has a truly comprehensive remit?

Des Browne: That issue has exercised the hon. Lady for some time and she and I have discussed it previously. I can give an assurance that the organisations that will be subject to inspection by the inspectorate will be kept constantly under review. That is why the clause has been drafted as it has. The list reflects the list contained in the review, but we have included a provision to add others to it by order. All organisations that have criminal investigatory powers and powers to prosecute in Northern Ireland are being considered for incorporation in the list. We are also considering whether the courts themselves ought to be included.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for that helpful and useful intervention. As he has responded so positively, I shall try him on another issue.

Ian Paisley: I did not catch what the Minister said. Did he imply that he would see that the ombudsman's office would be on the list, or did he just say that it could be on the list?

Lady Hermon: The Minister indicated that he would keep the list actively under review and that it would become more comprehensive.
	I want to draw the Minister's attention to the dramatic fall in the number of police officers. The figure has fallen below the 7,500 recommended by Patten over 10 years, and has done so in under three years. We should prefer to see police officers out on the streets instead of being tied up in the prosecution of minor offences in magistrates courts. For that reason, we are happy with the separation of investigatory and prosecution functions.
	That said, will the Minister address low morale among police officers in Northern Ireland? Will he, in the context of a criminal justice Bill, consider introducing a fixed and heavy penalty for the murder of police officers, including Gardai officers on secondment to the new policing service in Northern Ireland and those who join it through lateral entry?
	I congratulate the review body on not following Patten's recommendation of using discrimination to redress imbalances in the composition of the police service. It is none the less disappointing that female and ethnic minority under-representation in the judiciary seems to have been largely overlooked in the Bill. That is one of many problems with the proposed reform of judicial appointments. The Ulster Unionists strongly support appointments based solely on merit.
	There is, however, an impression of politicisation in the new proposals, with the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister involved in the appointments procedures in many different forms and at all levels. That impression seems to be justified when one considers clause 3(7), under which the new Judicial Appointments Commission will be established. In paragraph 6.87 of the review, its members were at pains to point out the difference between the words reflective and representative:
	Individual judges and magistrates, in carrying out their functions, do not 'represent' any particular section of society.
	Nevertheless, the Bill contains the proposal that a representative commission be appointed. With the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister appointing five lay members, we have an appearance at least and a fear that political appointees might be inclined to make political appointments. I understand that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister might prefer not to have that power, but if my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would like to intervene, perhaps we could clarify that issue here and now.

Des Browne: Let me take advantage of the point that the hon. Lady makes to make a point that I have been meaning to make publicly for some time. Whereas it is appropriate for bodies that operate in a collegiate fashion to be either reflective or representative, individual appointments, such as judges, cannot possibly be seen to be representative; otherwise, it would be impossible for them to reflect society. In the context of what the Government are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland, it is important to say that it may be appropriate for some bodies that operate in a collegiate fashion to be seen to be either reflective or representative, but that that is entirely inappropriate for people such as judges, who are appointed to operate individually.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for that intervention.
	I sincerely congratulate the Governmentthe Minister will be pleased that we have so much on which to congratulate himon resisting the temptation to enhance in any real sense lay involvement in the judiciary. Experience in England and Wales shows that many lay benches can be costly, inefficient and fail to command the respect of others who work in the criminal justice system, so I appreciate the fact that the Government resisted the temptation to follow suit and repeat the pattern found in Great Britain.
	Despite the fact that we welcome so many positive aspects of the Bill, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that there are matters about which we are greatly disappointed. I am disappointed with recommendation 138, in which the Irish language is specifically singled out for consideration for use in courts. Such a recommendation offends other minority groups in Northern Ireland, not least the large Hong Kong Chinese community. I declare an interest in that I am the chairman, on a voluntary basis, of the fundraising committee for the Chinese Welfare Association.
	In fairness to our ethnic minority groups, all minority groups should be considered fairly, so perhaps the Minister will kindly give equal attention to the language of other minority groups. Perhaps he will explain at the end of the debate what is meant by the phrase consideration of the use of the Irish language, as used in that recommendation.

Martin Smyth: The constituency that I represent, South Belfast, contains a high percentage of people who speak other languages, so I support my hon. Friend on that issue. Surely translators could be present to help those whose main language is Irish, especially as English is spoken even in the Dail.

Lady Hermon: I thank my hon. Friend. I am reminded of the cost, which the Northern Ireland Assembly considered, of providing simultaneous translation into Irish, and such costs should also be borne in mind.
	The section of the review entitled Community Safety contains rather odd proposals for local community safety partnerships, which will require much greater scrutiny in Committee. The proposals are odd in two respects. The first relates to the lack of detail about the composition of the partnerships. I would have liked more information on who will be encouraged to serve on them. Secondly, I am discouraged by the recommendation's similarity to the proposal in the Patten report for district policing partnership boards, as they were originally described.
	Clause 71(4)(d) will give the local community safety partnerships the power to buy in additional resources. I hope that point will be clarified, because I do not want us to resurrect the original power in the Patten report that would have allowed policing to be bought in by the partnerships.

Des Browne: The hon. Lady can be reassured that our intention is made clear in the implementation plan. Local rates are and should remain a matter for the devolved institutions to determine.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's clarification.
	I have supported the Belfast agreement from the beginning and continue to do so. It is the benchmark against which the many changes to be introduced by the Bill must be measured. As hon. Members have said, the agreement was endorsed by a substantial majority in a referendum in Northern Ireland and in a separate referendum in the Republic of Ireland. The Government must not therefore cast aside the wishes of the majority of the people on the island of Ireland and substitute them with their own as they have done in the recent past.
	I want the Government to abide by the Belfast agreement for a change and to build on it, so that it works for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland and not just a section of the population. Given the express provisions in the agreement, there can be absolutely no justification for clause 66 as drafted. It recommends that the royal coat of arms must not be displayed in any courtroom. The Minister will know that there is an express provision in the Bill not only about Northern Ireland's constitutional position in the agreement unless and until people wish otherwise, but about the use of symbols.
	The paragraph dedicated to symbols and emblems states that all the participantsthe British Government, the Irish Government, Sinn Fein and the rest
	acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.
	I particularly draw attention to the words in the agreementwhich the vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland agreed to in two referendumsthat say that symbols and emblems are to be used
	in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.
	It was not part of the agreementand, therefore, not a wish of the people of the island of Irelandthat symbols should be taken down. On the contrary, they are to be used in the manner to which I have drawn attention. So the hacking out of the royal coat of arms from existing courtrooms and the exterior of courthouses where they are fixtures is wholly unacceptable. We reject outright such a recommendation. Such acts of vandalism inside and outside courthouses would provoke intense division rather than avoid it. It would certainly add to the steady seeping away of Unionist support for the agreement, which I bitterly regret, and the Government must address that problem.
	I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State allude to heritage considerations. I hope that when it comes to listed buildings that have the royal coat of arms embossed in wood or sculpted in, either in the courtroom or on the exterior of the courthouse, a sensible cross-party consensus will emerge that the vandalism of those symbols will not promote mutual respect, but cause division instead.
	Provisions in clause 62 also make us concerned about new courthouses. The recommendation suggests that they should be neutral on the outside, the inside and the roof. However, the agreement is not neutral about symbols, and I specifically read out the relevant paragraph. It urges all participants to use symbols in a way that shows mutual respect rather than causing division. So I cannot accept the neutrality of new courthouses and new courtrooms. Neutral is not what we voted for. I voted for mutual respect.

David Trimble: With regard to arguments in favour of neutrality, which appear to have influenced the Northern Ireland Office's review group and consequently the legislation, would it not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Office to reconsider its position? My hon. Friend argues that the agreement was not about neutrality, but about the appropriate use of symbols. In addition, the neutrality argument was rejected in the High Court of Northern Ireland by Mr. Justice Kerr in his judgment on the flag regulations. He said that those arguments based on the agreement that there should be neutrality in the use of symbols were wrong. So the few arguments that have been put to that effect by various Labour Members have been ruled wrong in the High Court of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, especially as it means that I can delete a whole paragraph of my speech because he has just covered my remarks.
	Instead of having blank walls inside and outside, I passionately hope that in consultation with other parties we can make the agreement work and reach a consensus on mutually agreed symbols for new courtrooms. That is what we and the people of Ireland voted for.
	My right hon. Friend urges me not to exclude my comments on flag flying regulations, so I shall draw the attention of the House to a serious omission. The regulations were, as he reminded us, recently tested in the High Court. In the Murphy case, Mr. Justice Kerr had to consider whether they were compatible with the agreement. He concluded that there was no particular case to be made for the flag flying regulations to favour one tradition over another. He decided that the symbolism of the flag merely reflected Northern Ireland's constitutional position as part of the UK. The flag flying regulations reduced the number of days and they treat Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the UK. That is guaranteed in the agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland should be pleased with that. The regulations exclude 12 July, but the situation is the same as in Great Britain, and if we want to be treated as part of the United Kingdom we should have agreed to the regulations on flags. I should like the Minister to address the serious issue of future courthouses because there appears to be a gap in the flags regulations on that matter.
	In conclusion, the Bill represents a genuine opportunity for the Government to claw back Unionist confidence lost during the implementation of the Patten reforms. The Government can begin to repair that damage if they start to listen to Unionist concerns with open ears and show themselves to be responsive to those concerns. Mistakes were made in implementing Patten and there was insensitivity in the handling of those reforms. I urge the Government not to repeat those mistakes in reforming the criminal justice system.

Mike Gapes: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I agreed with much of what she said and particularly with the tone of her contribution, which was constructive, considered and intelligent.
	It is a pity that the Opposition's contribution was made in such a different tone. Unfortunately, that reflects what I fear is a shift away from their earlier support for the Good Friday agreement. At one point when I was listening to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) expressing full synthetic outrage, I almost wished that we had the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) back. The Conservative party claims to support the Belfast agreement, but in all its actions, its rhetoric and its language it consistently works to assist the opponents of the agreement both in Northern Ireland and on its own Back Benches.
	The Bill is very welcome. It is a further step towards the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. As hon. Members have said, it has been subject, in different forms including a draft Bill, to wide and on-going consultation. I had the privilege of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office for two years, from just after the 1997 election until the end of July 1999. I pay tribute to the work done in that period by the Ministers with whom I worked, including the former Secretary of State and Member for Redcar and my right hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for whom I worked directly during the negotiations that secured the Good Friday agreement.
	Those two weeks in March 1998 were among the most tiring and exhilarating times in my 35 years in active politics. It was not certain that we would get the agreement. On many occasions there were difficult issues to be dealt with. Books have been written about that, and no doubt there will be many more when people write their memoirs. All the parties present, including the two Governments, had to compromise and come together to secure the agreement. Its wording is very clear. It has been quoted already, so I will not quote it at length. Pages 22 and 23 of the Belfast agreement set out the approach to be followed on policing and justice. There is clear recognition that a complete review of the system was needed; the Bill is the product of that review. All the participants agreed that the principal aims of the criminal justice system were to
	deliver a fair and impartial system of justice to the community;
	be responsive to the community's concerns, and encouraging community involvement where appropriate;
	have the confidence of all parts of the community; and
	deliver justice efficiently and effectively.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has already talked about the concept of parity of esteem. I agree strongly that we should deal with the realities, but we must also recognise that in Northern Irelandbut not just there, as we have the problem in other parts of the UK, but perhaps in less extreme formssymbolism is, unfortunately, often far more important than reality. There has been talk in our debate about the role of the Queen. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford kept going on about it. He is an interesting man because he is a pro-European who supported the Maastricht treaty; I have shared platforms with him, when he argued in favour of Europe against Eurosceptic Conservatives and others. When he signed up to the Maastricht treaty, he supported the concept of European Union citizenship.
	The people of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England and the Irish Republic are all European Union citizens, which did not seem to present a problem to the hon. Gentleman in his previous incarnation. Now, however, he has become obsessed, to the point of going over the top, with the language of the review and the report. I recognise, and recent events in north Belfast bring it home to all of us, the need to be careful and make sure that we do not encourage alienation among the Protestant working class communities of Northern Ireland. There is a danger that irresponsible demagogues and people with a criminal agenda will be able to use symbolic issues to build support, with the consequence that postal workers will be murdered and other criminal terrorist activity will take place.
	We all know that that is not representative of the bulk of society or the bulk of people who call themselves loyalists. Nevertheless, there will be a dangerous situation if gangs of misguided young men carry out attacks because they believe that their identity has been destroyed or will be taken away. Those issues are politically important and account must be taken of them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will take careful note of the words of the hon. Member for North Down and others who are in favour of the agreement and want it to succeed. It is crucial that those of us throughout the United Kingdom who want harmony, parity of esteem, unity and an end to violence, both strengthen the forces on the ground in Northern Ireland that are in favour of that aim and stand up and undermine the demagogues, whether in the House or in Northern Ireland.
	I agree very strongly with the remarks made by a number of hon. Members about the importance of the Policing Board having Sinn Fein members. I also believe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) suggested, Sinn Fein Members should not be elsewhere in the building, but here in the Chamber to tell us why they refuse to support the reformed police organisations in Northern Ireland. The proposals were set out in the Belfast agreement, to which they signed up and on which they campaigned for a yes vote. It would be good if they were present, so that we could subject them to such questioning. Until the bulk of the Catholic community in all areas in Northern Ireland supports, joins and assists the police, they will not be able to do their job with maximum effectiveness.
	The Bill is not about those mattersit relates to other issuesbut it is crucial that it is understood in the context of the wider policing and justice aspects of the Belfast agreement. It contains important provisions about youth justiceclauses 57 to 61and it is welcome that information about discharge of prisoners is to be given to victims in a wider sense. Community safety partnerships at a local level are also important. We have had them throughout England and their quality was variable, but I believe that they are very significant.
	Those are all welcome steps forward. I believe that, in time, the Bill will make a big contribution in terms of making life better for ordinary people in all parts of Northern Ireland. I hope that, by building on this process, as well as on the other measures implemented in the past couple of years and the new political processes initiated by the very wise activities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team, support will strengthen during the next year for the pro-agreement, pro-co-operation and pro-consensual approach that is favoured by at least some Ulster Unionist Members and also by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down. I hope that, in time, more aspects of normal life will be devolved to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland.
	In conclusion, it is important that those of us who live in the rest of the United Kingdom understand that the reality of Northern Ireland and of the issues that are being discussed is not what will feature in the headlines in tomorrow's papers, as it is not about whether certain people have officesor about the furniture, plants and number of filing cabinets in those officesbut about what the ordinary people of Northern Ireland will gain in their day-to-day life from measures taken by this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Gregory Campbell: In rising to speak in the debate, I fear that I have to say things that hon. Members may not find palatable. None the less, I feel that they must be said. As the Secretary of State said at the outset, the Bill is being brought forward in the context of the Belfast agreement. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was the biggest overhaul of criminal justice in 30 years.
	It sometimes appears to people in Northern Ireland that there is an underlying premise on which Her Majesty's Government and the political institutions in Northern Ireland tackle all issues, whether criminal justice and the improvements to it that we all want, political institutions such as the devolved Assembly, cultural manifestations or parades.
	The premise is that there is an inherent imbalance, almost a genetic imbalance, that must be rectified. There is a false, inaccurate and implausible belief that Northern Ireland's inherent Unionism must be diluted to accommodate or satisfy nationalist opinion. That appears to be the case in the Bill, as it was in the Belfast agreement, and in decisions about cultural manifestations and parades. Every major or significant move, for example on emblems and the royal arms outside courthouses, has to be a signal to the nationalist community of a form of neutrality and openness. It has to be an attempt by the Government to bring the nationalist community from the cold into the warm sunshine of an all-embracing Northern Ireland under the agreement.
	Before Christmas, the Secretary of State made a comment that my colleagues and I have been making, not for a few weeks or months, not even since the Belfast agreement, but for decades. The only thing that he got wrong was the tense. Northern Ireland is not in danger of becoming a cold place for Unionists; it is and has been a cold place for Unionists for many years because of the underlying premise on which the Bill is based. There is a false belief that nationalism can be accommodated by the removal of symbols.
	Although I bow to the Minister's greater experience of the Scottish legal system, I raised in the ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly the question of royal symbols outside Scottish courthouses. Nationalist opinion rises and falls in Scotland, and I asked many witnesses whether there was evidence of an attempt by those who represent the nationalist community there to remove the royal symbols from outside courthouses. Every witness said that there was no such move and that they knew of no demand from nationalists in Scotland to remove the insignia from courthouses. Why should there be such a demand in Northern Ireland? Before the criminal justice review was mooted, did any evidence exist to show that there was such a demand?
	I saw a false and inaccurate programme last night on national television about the day known as Bloody Sunday. I watched to see if it would refer to a demand for changes to the criminal justice system. There was no such reference. Why? I defy any hon. Member, past or present, to recollect demands by civil rights demonstrators at the beginning of the civil disturbances in Northern Ireland for changes to the criminal justice system. I do not recall there being any and, until the review, there was no evidence that the removal of the insignia or the royal coat of arms was a demand being voiced by campaigners.
	I take issue with some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He referred to the ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I was a member. I attended most of its hearings, put questions to many of the witnesses and spoke at the Northern Ireland Assembly when we were debating these issues. I made the point on every occasion I could that the hard issues that might divide members of the committee, and Members of the Assembly, had not been addressed. We did not grapple with the thorny question of the royal coat of arms outside courthouses. That is why there was a degree of unanimity. I do not mind if people agree to set aside for a time the hard issues that are likely to divide them, to achieve some form of consensus. I do mind, however, if they try to present that course of action as a solution to the many difficult decisions that they face.

Ian Paisley: As a member of the committee, I must point out that the chairman, Mr. Shipley Dalton, an Official Unionist, stated in the committee's report:
	It is true to say that there is no complete consensus
	in this report. Hon. Members have tried to paint a picture of almost complete unanimity in the committee. There was no such unanimity, because these issues, which are contentious for Unionists, were not dealt with. They could not be dealt with because there was no coming together of minds.

Gregory Campbell: That is indeed the case, and it was alluded to in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall have to ask the hon. Member for South Down to explain that omission from his speech at some point, but I shall now move on.
	The Secretary of State's earlier contribution on the Policing Board will cause concern in Northern Ireland. We attempted on several occasions to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the precise nature of the Government's position. It appeared that, when he met the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and, I assume, other parties several months ago, the issue of the deadline for the nominations to the Policing Board was put to him. We were given the clear and precise response that a deadline would be adhered to and that, once it had passed, that would be it for any changes to the board until a subsequent point beyond the next Assembly elections, which are scheduled for 2003.
	The Secretary of State appeared today to admit of the possibility that the boat might not have left the harbour, if Sinn Fein-IRA were to suggest, in the immediate future, either privately or publicly, that they had reviewed their position. We were told many months ago that the boat was to set sail, and that if Sinn Fein was not on it, it would be left behind. The implication tonight, however, was that if a change was in the offing from Sinn Fein-IRA, there could perhaps be a review of the legislation by Her Majesty's Government. It would be preferable if we could clarify that point tonight. Has the boat left the harbour? Is there any possibility that if Sinn Fein-IRA were to hint at a change of minddespite their previously stated position, their adherence to and support for violence, and their continued campaign of punishment beatings in Northern Irelandtheir position would be reconsidered via a change in legislation in the House?

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Does he agree that it would be preferable to have Sinn Fein on the Policing Board at the earliest opportunity and thereby encourage young republicans to join the police service? Would not that be a better way forward for all of us in Northern Ireland and a clear indication that the war is indeed over?

Gregory Campbell: If Sinn Fein were committed to the political process and if its members were democrats, I would unreservedly and unequivocally say yes, but the point is that they are not. They would corrupt the system just as they are corrupting the system in Northern Ireland now. That is the point and that is why the hon. Lady has alluded over the past few days and weeks to the undermining of support for the Belfast agreement in the Unionist community. That community sees the corruption of civic and political life by Sinn Fein-IRA supporters across Northern Ireland, so it has no confidence in the agreement that delivered those people to the heart of government via the system that the hon. Lady supported and continues to support.
	I must refer to the possible appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Bill says that there will be
	a body corporate known as the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
	consisting of a chairman and
	twelve other members appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly.
	My party would have serious reservations about that, not least because, just as the political institutions are causing controversy and attracting a distinct lack of support in the Unionist community, the offices of First and Deputy First Minister, as they claim themselves to be, equally have a reputation problem in the Unionist community in that Unionists have no confidence in them.
	I return to the possible introduction of community restorative justice, which has been raised several times. That issue again divided the Northern Ireland Assembly ad hoc committee, as it causes deep concern to many communities in Northern Ireland. For a number of years, a barbaric type of justice has been meted out by those who support Sinn Fein or loyalist paramilitaries and some have banded together in a pseudo-community restorative justice programme. Some people involved in some programmes are causing major concern to those of us with a genuine interest in a restorative justice system that can command support across the communities in Northern Ireland. It is vital that the Northern Ireland communityProtestants and Catholics; Unionists and nationalistssee that a community restorative justice programme can have no semblance of credibility within the terms of the Bill.

Des Browne: That is a very bald assertion. The Bill sets out clearly the exact reassurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks on the proposed restorative justice agenciesthey must be accredited and they must be prepared to work with the statutory agencies, including the policeso I invite him to explain why they are not good enough. What reassurances on restorative justice, which he says could be good for the people of Northern Ireland, does he think he needs from the Government?

Gregory Campbell: The Minister should not underestimate the capacity of Sinn Fein and the community groups with which it is associated to do whatever it takes to control the justice system in their areas. In the so-called ghetto areas of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein has proved over and again that it is prepared to use whatever means it has at its disposal to try to control the justice system.

Des Browne: The House needs to tease this matter out. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has just articulated is an argument for no restorative justice. Is that what he is arguing? He prefaced his critical remarks on the Bill by saying that, like the Government, he believes that restorative justice has a role to play in Northern Ireland. We should work together to ensure a restorative justice system that does not allow those elements to deny the people of Northern Ireland this opportunity. What is his position? Does he think that no system of restorative justice will ever work in Northern Ireland because of those elements, or can we work together to improve the provisions in the Bill?

Gregory Campbell: Last week, the Minister told me and my colleagues that he wanted our comments on the Bill and suggestions for improvements. We relayed our comments, including our concerns on the community restorative justice aspects of the Bill. I am merely laying down a marker. The ability and capacity for Sinn Fein and the community groups with which it is associated should not be underestimated: they will go to the nth degree to try to ensure that they retain control in Northern Ireland.
	I do not think that the status of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland has been referred to in the debate. The ad hoc committee took evidence from the board. The board and the committee agreed that it would be a retrograde step to downgrade the board to the status of a next steps agency. I reiterate that view.

Mark Francois: I want to speak against several aspects of the Bill, and to make specific criticisms of the proposals for restorative justice for young offenders in part 4. I also want to make some wider points about the nature of the Bill.
	The simplest explanation of the aims of restorative justice can be summarised as the three Rs: responsibility, restoration and reintegration. As I understand it, a number of countries around the world already use similar systems for encouraging offenders to confront the consequences of their behaviour, and to make amends via one method or another to those against whom they have transgressed.
	In Canada, the emphasis is on reconciliation, with victims given the opportunity to confront their offenders and to suggest ways in which offenders could make amends for what they have done. In New Zealand, they prefer a system of family or community conferencing, which involves people concerned about the victim and/or the offender in decisions about how amends can best be made.

Des Browne: Even in his introductory remarks, the hon. Gentleman sounds as though he may know what he is talking about, and may have come across the document that accompanied the review and the many hundreds of research documents that are referred to in the schedule to it. Why did he not tell his hon. Friends on the Front Bench about its existence?

Mark Francois: If it helps the Minister, I can confirm that my research was not undertaken for me in a great hurry by civil servants at two minutes' notice.
	The Australians use a similar system based on the New Zealand model but with a greater role for the police as part of the overall process. Closer to home, we have a slightly different system. In Scotland, offenders can be brought before panels of volunteer members of the public, who can discuss restorative justice options with them and their parents. In England, a non-criminal youth panel sees offenders who have been formally convicted by the youth court, and seeks to draw up a contract involving the offender and those seeking reparation.
	The proposed system of restorative justice for young offenders in Northern Ireland is based on an amalgam of those different approaches, with youth conferences and associated youth conference plans. The critical difference is that the systems in other countries were not designed to operate in an environment such as Northern Ireland, where special circumstances clearly apply.
	The proposals for Northern Ireland youth conferences allow the participation of a so-called appropriate adult. Under new article 3A, the appropriate adult could be a parent or guardian, a social worker or a legal representative. If no one in those categories was able or willing to serve, he or she could be replaced by
	any responsible person who has attained the age of 18 and is neither a police officer nor a member of the police support staff.
	That definition is so broad that it could relate to just about anyone in practice. While it excludes police officers and members of the police support staff, presumably because the police are meant to be represented at the conference in their own right, it makes no reference to excluding members of paramilitary organisations, whether republican or loyalist. That means that, given the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, the system is open to abuse.
	For instance, what is to stop members of paramilitary organisations effectively using their muscle in the local community to insist that only they should be allowed to represent young offenders at youth conferences, as appropriate adults? They might then argue for a very light penaltyif any meaningful sanction is to be imposed at all. Youths who had been involved in criminal activity might look to the local paramilitary bosses for protection via the system. Not only does that offer the paramilitaries an avenue to subversion of the justice system; it threatens to turn young offenders towards them if they appear to have been successfully protected.
	I accept that the proposed system may be well intentioned, but I believe that it ignores the reality of life in Northern Ireland. All this needs to be thought through again very carefully, even before the system is piloted in the Province.
	I am also concerned about the proposed changes to the judicial oath. The current oath states
	I . . . do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of . . . and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.
	In stark contrast, the revised oath in clause 20 states simply:
	I . . . do swear that I will well and faithfully serve in the office of . . . and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will, according to the laws and usages of this realm.
	The revised oath expunges any references to the Crown other than the word realm, which it retains almost as an afterthought. That is of concern not just to Unionists in Northern Ireland, but to all constitutional monarchistsor, at least, it should be. I include the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), for whom I also have a high regard.
	As our amendment states, we oppose the Bill
	because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm.
	Once we interfere with that principle, there will be implications for other parts of the United Kingdom. We kid ourselves if we pretend otherwise.
	I also have worries about the removal of the Crown arms outside courthouses in the Province, for similar reasons. Clause 66 states:
	The Royal Arms must not be displayed in any courtroom.
	It also states that the arms must not be displayed
	on the exterior of a new courthouse.
	New courthouse is defined as
	a courthouse first used after the coming into force of this section.
	We will therefore have the anomaly of some courthouses displaying the royal arms and some not, depending not on what they stand for but simply on when they opened.

Des Browne: That is true.

Mark Francois: I agree with the Minister. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill gloss over that important point.

Ian Paisley: Fifty per cent. of the courthouses will be new courthouses. They will have no royal arms.

Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For the avoidance of doubt, when I said that I agreed with the Minister, I agreed with his admitting the point. I did not agree with what he is trying to do.
	If the Bill is passed in its current form, how long will it be before we hear siren voices suggesting that the royal arms may be removed from other courthouses in the United Kingdom in order to comply with the precedent that has been set in Northern Ireland? The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill gloss over that important point in a desultory three lines.
	These measures are an affront not just to Unionist opinion but to all loyal subjects in the United Kingdom, including those in England, Scotland and Wales.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman has intimated that that practice will be an insult to people in Scotland, England and Wales as well as Northern Ireland, yet it has pertained in Scotland at least for part of its history. Was that also an insult to the people of the other regions of the United Kingdom?

Mark Francois: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I understand that royal arms are currently displayed in courthouses in Scotland and I do not believe that that should change.
	These measures will undoubtedly give succour to republicans, but not just republicans in Northern Ireland. Here we come to the heart of the point that my party is opposing. They will also be welcomed by republicans on the British mainland, including those in the British Labour party, of whom there are many, some covert and some overt. A few have gone from covert to overt in the course of this debate.
	The ramifications of some clauses go well beyond Northern Ireland itself. They are the thin end of a wider republican wedge. Chiefly for those reasons, I oppose them.

Patsy Calton: I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) in welcoming the Bill. I shall not repeat his arguments in regard to parts 1 to 3. Instead, I shall confine my remarks to parts 4 and 5 and endeavour to be relatively brief.
	I too was struck by the emphasis that the report of the criminal justice review placed on international human rights standards. Paragraph 10.64 suggests that in drawing up and agreeing the aims and principles of the juvenile justice system, there would be value in drawing in particular upon the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, the international covenant on civil and political rights, UN guidelines for the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the UN standard minimum for the administration of juvenile justice, and UN guidelines for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty.
	I am pleased that clause 53(3) states that all persons and bodies exercising functions in relation to the youth justice system must have regard to the welfare of children affected by the exercise of their functions, with a view to furthering the personal, social and educational development of the child. Will the Government consider a more detailed statement of aims and principles being drawn up, perhaps in consultation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission?
	Paragraph 10.66 of the report of the criminal justice review suggests:
	The Government should develop, agree and incorporate a clear statement of the aims of the juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland and a statement of the principles which should guide those who exercise the powers conferred by the legislation with due regard to the international human rights standards.
	I support the scheme of reparation orders that is introduced under clause 54. There is a need for a greater role for the principles of restorative justice, with offenders meeting their victims, discovering the consequences of their actions and planning to improve their behaviour. Reform should respond not only to the problems caused by child offenders but to the problems that they face.
	The reparation order is useful, in that it can show children the damage, both physical and emotional, that their actions have caused to the victim, and allow them to give something back to the victim and the community and make amends for their actions in a way that a custodial sentence could not achieve.
	I am a little curious, however, about the provision in the new article 36B(2)(a) that the clause inserts in the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998that a reparation order must not be made if the court proposes to pass a custodial sentence on the offender. Surely there are circumstances in which a reparation order would be of benefit in addition to a custodial sentence. Are there circumstances in which a custodial sentence could be reduced if such an order was made, or is it the intention that a youth conference should be offered or convened in every case in which a community responsibility order, a custody order or a custodial sentence is imposed? There is a possible element of reparation in community responsibility and community custody orders, but not, as they are written, involving the victim.
	I am also concerned about some aspects of the custody care orders mentioned in clause 56. They are specified as being for children under 14 and for offences that do not carry a term of life imprisonment for an adult. A period of six months to two years seems to me a very long time for someone so young. What is the reasoning behind the measure?
	Further, in new article 44F, which details breaches of supervision requirements under the custody care orders, paragraph (3) imposes on the child a 200 fine or placement in secure accommodation for a period not to exceed 30 days. If the child has reached the age of 14, the figure rises to 1,000. These seem like quite large sums for young people. There also seems to be no mention of parental or guardian involvement. What role does the Secretary of State envisage for guardians or parents?
	I am impressed by the provision for youth conferences and youth conference plans in clause 57, but I should like to see a greater commitment to the child's education expressed in the membership of youth conference panels, and greater clarity about the circumstances in which these will be convened.
	Under part 5, the assumption of full responsibility for security by the Court Service and the removal of all symbols in the interior of courtrooms will ensure that the courts are a more welcoming environment for people, regardless of their community or ethnic background, a fact which Liberal Democrats very much welcome. I am also pleased to see in the criminal justice review implementation plan that the Court Service has already been proactive in the provision of information to the public and in providing outreach opportunities to the wider community through court visits and work experience placements, and that work is on-going to simplify the language used in courts.
	I agree with the report of the criminal justice review in its adoption of the recommendations in Speaking up for Justice. Under the current justice system, victims are failed, in that they often feel left out, unimportant and even non-existent. I agree with clause 67, which is designed to inform victims of the progress of their cases and of the release of prisoners back into the community. I am concerned, however, about subsection (4), which allows the Secretary of State to make available other information relating to the discharge and temporary release of imprisoned offenders. Will the Secretary of State publish any guidance on what other information might be? We have seen a rise in the incidence of vigilantism across the UK in recent years, and I seek reassurance from the Government on how they propose to minimise the risk of that.
	I welcome clauses 70 and 71, on a community strategy and a local community safety partnership, but I would like to raise briefly one particular concern about the local community safety partnerships. Clause 71(3) states that membership of the partnerships is to be as specified by order made by the Secretary of State. Why are the guidelines on membership, if not the actual community groups, not written into the Bill? Could the Secretary of State at the very least make the order available in draft form to the House for its consideration?
	The Bill is certainly moving in the right direction and should help in making the criminal justice system on the whole more accessible and more understood by the general public, whether or not they are ever involved with its process. Such openness and transparency are very welcome, and I support the Bill in principle.

Crispin Blunt: The first thing that I want to talk about is consultation, and the way in which the Bill has been handled. Much has already been said about that in the debate, but I want to make it clear that, in general, the Opposition welcome the Government's approach to framing the legislationup to a point.
	The beginning of the process, which was conducted by the Northern Ireland Office, set a good example for other Departments of how to go forward and seek consensus, and also perhaps, for the benefit of the Government, to identify areas of disagreement and find out whether they had the potential to be resolved.
	However, I have to tell the Under-Secretary that the moment the Bill got into his hands, that praiseworthy approach appeared to fall apart, because of the timetable. He did extend the timetable for consultation on the draft Bill over Christmas, but not to the satisfaction of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which I shall return in a momentand now we face the programme motion before the House, which we shall not be able to debate.
	The combination of those two elements has entirely negated the beneficial effects of what the Government did before they published the Bill in November. I congratulate the Minister on having united all shades of opinion in the Assemblybecause, as he will be aware, it is united in its condemnation of the Government's handling of the Bill and their inability to give the Assembly, or anybody else, sufficient time to consult on the details of the Bill, as opposed to the details of the published review.
	The Assembly's conclusion is worth reading into the record. It states that Members noted that the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations states that
	'sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest.'
	It provides that 12 weeks should be the standard minimum for consultation and that consultation should never have to be shortened below an acceptable minimum for reasons of departmental convenience, for example because a department has fallen behind its own implementation schedule.
	It is much to be regretted that the Government have not been able to meet that standard for the discussion of the Bill before this stage. It is wholly unacceptable that they have provided for only 12 sittings on the Bill in Committee, because it contains a vast amount of detail that deserves proper consideration by the people who will have to examine it.
	In my 15-minute response to the debate, I should not be having to try to make up for what is lacking elsewhere because the Government have ensured that many of the hours that would be necessary in Committee will not be available. I do not believe that it will be possible to give the Bill proper consideration in Committee under the timetable that the Government have drawn up, so I urge them to withdraw it.
	Now I must move on and deal with the contributions to the debate. I heard the Secretary of State say that the composition of the review group was established under the agreement. However, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made clear in his opening remarks, the review group was a creature of the Northern Ireland Office; its composition was not part of the Belfast agreement.
	The Secretary of State also said that there would continue to be consultation over the months aheadbut consultation in this place will end on 14 February, less than one month ahead, when the Committee stage will finish if the House passes the programme motion.
	Concerns have been expressed in the debate about community safety, not least in the contribution by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who seemed to welcome clauses 70 and 71 before the penny dropped with her that there was nothing in them. They are Henry VIII clauses, which give the Secretary of State the power to do anything he likes.
	Detail is woefully missing from clauses 70 and 71. That is not acceptable to Parliament; nor is giving the Secretary of State that much power when, because of the Government's behaviour to date, there is significant suspicion about exactly how they will use those powers if Parliament bestows them.
	The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whose long-standing interest and expertise in Northern Ireland politics is on the record, began his speech with a complaint about the youth element of part 4 of the Bill. He complained that the Bill mentioned a first duty to protect the public by preventing offending rather than by rehabilitation. By implication, the hon. Member for Cheadle agreed with him.
	I wholly disagree and shall support the Government in Committee in sustaining the position as it stands. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe in the merits of rehabilitation. It is implicit, however, that if we succeed in rehabilitating youth offenders through the youth justice system in the Billwe have no problem in principle with much of it, but considerable reservations about points of detailwe will achieve the first aim of the Bill as well as achieving what the hon. Gentleman wants in terms of protecting the interests of the child by preventing the child from continuing as an offender.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) about consultation, and I sincerely hope that he will join us in the Division Lobby when we oppose the programme motion. His party has traditionally done that, but tonight's motion is unacceptable not just in principle, but in practice. Good work can be done on the Bill in Committee as part of the Government's consultation process.
	I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's maladroit equation of the hon. Member for Hull, North with Cromwell, to which the hon. Gentleman quite properly took exception.

Kevin McNamara: For the record, Cromwell exported 2,000 McNamaras as slaves to Jamaica. It is arguable that he exported the wrong ones, but to call me Cromwell, or to suggest in any way that that man was a great parliamentarian, is to rubbish history.

Crispin Blunt: That is why I made my point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had been somewhat maladroit in making such a remark. I shall go no further into that point because I should have no time to discuss the rest of the Bill if I did.
	It was a bit rich of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to say that the Conservative view of the merits of devolution appeared confused. Let us consider the messages put out by his party at present. A bipartisan arrangement between Government and Opposition continues to exist over the Belfast agreement. Our concern is about cases in which the agreement is not implemented, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made clear during the debate. Yet today, the leader of the Liberal Democrats has announced that the bipartisan arrangement that has prevailed for some time between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is over.
	The party of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also sent out a confused message in its votes on access to facilities of the House: 14 of its Members voted for, 14 voted against and 28 abstained. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his own house in order before seeking to criticise the Conservatives for confusion of messages.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was quite right about the consistency of the approach taken by the Social Democratic and Labour party over the years. He said that it sought to achieve neutrality in the criminal justice system. That goes to the heart of the difference between the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition. We do not believe that there should be neutrality in how the criminal justice system is represented in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the criminal justice system must flow from the Crown. Symbols should recognise that reality, and I shall return to symbols later. However, I appreciated the tone in which he suggested that we should withdraw our amendment, even though I fear that that request will not meet with success.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) made it clear in speaking immediately after the hon. Member for South Down that our opposition to that detail of the Bill is no cheap publicity stunt and that it arises from fundamental principles. He drew proper attention to the fact that the review group's conclusion on the issue was illogical, and I want to return to that in a few moments.
	The contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) was that of a self-confessed republican. That became clear during this debate.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the difference between a republican in Ireland and a republican in Britainthe latter simply believes that the hereditary principle is not the most appropriate way to select the Head of State.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that distinction. Of course, I am not suggesting that he is associated with the violence that has been the distinction between the people who describe themselves as nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland. Part of the problem in dealing with Northern Ireland issues is that one ends up talking in code and words such as community become enormously loaded.
	That is also part of the problem with the Bill, especially with regard to community safety partnerships. What is the word community supposed to mean in that context? The Secretary of State has introduced the Bill, but clauses 70 and 71 deal with community safety partnerships in absolutely no detail, so the House is entitled to be extremely suspicious about what will flow from that, which is why the Secretary of State should not have such powers.
	I compliment the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the charming tone with which she delivered her speech; it completely deceived the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) by wholly disguising the steel in her remarks and the resolution with which she put them to the House. She referred to the role of the chief inspector, and we agree that it would be appropriate to include the ombudsman in the list of institutions to be subject to inspection by the chief inspector. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that satisfaction, if not in replying to the debate, certainly in Committeeif the House is minded to debate the Bill in Committee.
	The hon. Lady also talked about the Irish language. Of course, an absurd position has now arisen in the new courts in Laganside. To accommodate verbal instructions to members of the public, they can ask for those instructions to be put on a board in three languagesEnglish, Irish and Cantonesebecause more people speak Cantonese on the island of Ireland than speak Irish. That is the rather bizarre result of attempting to accommodate everyone.
	I agree with some of the analysis of by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, especially when he said that the problem was with Unionists and loyalists and that people could abuse the debate about symbols. That has to be viewed in the context of the fact that there is now a cold house for Unionists in Northern Ireland. Almost every informed commentator now agrees that the issue that requires the greatest management is not reassuring the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, but what has happened to the Unionist community as a direct result of the way in which the Government have conducted themselves, going above and beyond the Belfast agreement.
	The issue of coats of arms in courthouses and the oaths taken by members of the judiciary goes right to the heart of that symbology. The hon. Lady quoted the agreement. I shall not repeat that quote now, but it made it clear that the measures are not part of the Belfast agreement. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart complained that there had been too much focus on the issue, so why is it in the Bill? Why is such a measure being introduced when it will cause such offence to the people who want the Union to be sustained?
	The provisions for the oath and the coat of arms will be foolish in practice because of the message that they send to the Unionists. They are unacceptable in principle to those of us who regard Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and want it to remain so. That is why we shall press our reasoned amendment to the vote.

Des Browne: I fear that 15 minutes is not long enough to deal with all the points that have been raised in the debate. I am grateful to most Members for their contributions to what has, in the main, been a constructive debate on an important Bill. I say most, because I was disappointed by the contribution of an hour and 15 minutes by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). He devoted about an hour and 10 minutes of that to form, not to substance. I suspect that the bluster and alleged passion of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen was a cover for their failure to prepare properly for the debate so that they could address the provisions of this complicated and difficult, but important Bill.
	Before the debate, the Bill had benefited from the significant consultation that has contributed to its final form. The issue of consultation has occupied far too much time in the debate, but it is instructive that not one party other than the Opposition referred to the amount of consultation and co-operation that it has received from me, my officials in the Northern Ireland Office or my predecessors since the review proposals were published.
	I had an extensive meeting with the chair of the ad hoc committee of the Assembly. His work has been mentioned and he clearly understood the circumstances and the background that led to the Bill having to be published when it was. It is a pity that the understanding that was apparent in that meeting was not reflected in the report that was subsequently published.
	I must deal with another point that is not of substance but has been raised at length by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. He referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland left the Chamber a short time after he had made his speech. My clear recollectionI have checked this with the official recordis that my right hon. Friend referred in his speech to the fact that he would have to leave, so it is a great pity and a great discourtesy to him that those who were present in the Chamber and who sought thereafter to malign him by making constant references to his absence did not seek to raise that issue when he was here to defend himself.
	As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a significant programme of extensive meetings and many people in the Chamber will know the hours that he works for Northern Ireland, both in Belfast and in London. He would not have absented himself from the Chamber but for the fact that he had to go to Belfast this evening. He set out this evening, so it is a pity that those who sought to criticise him in his absence did not have the courage to raise the matter when he was here.

Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State said in his speech that he would have to leave early but not for a moment did I imagine that that meant that he would not stay even to hear the remarks of the Opposition spokesman. I thought that he would leave at some point in the evening. As he left, he sent me a note as I was speaking. Clearly, I was not able to read that note.
	On the most important point, the Secretary of State should so arrange his priorities that Parliament comes first whatever may need to be done in London, Belfast or elsewhere. The fact that he has not done so clearly shows what is wrong with the Government as a whole.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue specifically. If he checks the official record tomorrow, he will see that, when he was present in the Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, because of today's statements, he had to do the hon. Gentlemanmy right hon. Friend was referring to and looking directly at himthe discourtesy of leaving soon afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman has the courage to malign my right hon. Friend in that way, he should have done him the courtesy of doing it when he was here.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who is not in the Chamber, mentioned respect for Law Officers. We need to clarify that. He asked whether the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The answer to that is no, he cannot be a Member of it, and I refer hon. Members to clause 24(7). The review envisaged that the Attorney-General would be an independent and impartial figure. That recommendation was accepted and has been included in legislation.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said that we were making a new provision in which the Advocate- General would hold the position of Attorney-General for England and Wales. I refer hon. Members to the specific provision in clause 28. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the local Attorney-General cannot legally carry out the functions in relation to excepted matters, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) suggested. That is why there must be a division between the two responsibilities.
	Opposition Members said that there was no need to legislate this Session. The Government's position on that is clear. It is necessary to pave the way to make devolution possible if there is to be any prospect of the legislative framework for criminal justice in Northern Ireland being ready for the target that the Secretary of State mentioned today and which has been made clear in public in Northern Ireland for some time. The timetable to reach that objective is tight. Many of the provisions have to be implemented before devolution, such as the creation of a new prosecution service similar to that in England and Wales.
	I shall comment fleetingly on the allegation that no report was made available to hon. Members on the New Zealand experience during either the review process or the consultation period. Apart from the research document that was handed to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford during a meeting with officials in the Northern Ireland Office on that matter, the document Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A Comparative Review is a companion of the review document itself. Far from there being no academic consideration or review of the provisions in New Zealand, there are no less than eight references to it in the companion document, which I commend to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, About New Zealand, not about Northern Ireland. There could hardly be a report on the ability of restorative justice to have an impact on the young people of Northern Ireland when it has not been implemented. Indeed, that is what the Bill is about.
	The hon. Gentleman's argument was that there was no published research on the way in which restorative justice operates in New Zealand. There is, however, a significant amount of research on that. Indeed, a plethora of itnine pages, I thinkis in the back of the companion document. It covers research throughout the world on restorative justice and its operation in many different jurisdictions. I hope that between now and the next time[Interruption.] I will give way in a moment; I do not need the hon. Gentleman to instruct me on when to give way, especially as he only reluctantly gave way to me.
	I hope that before we engage in debate in Committee, the Opposition spokesman will have an opportunity to read up on much of the interesting documentation that is available.

David Trimble: Although one may argue what documentation was available and what studies are in it, surely the point is that the experience in New Zealand, whatever it might be, is not relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland. The essential point about the situation in Northern Ireland is the existence of paramilitary gangs that seek to dominate certain neighbourhoods which means that the introduction of any community-based scheme carries with it enormous dangers. That has no parallel in New Zealand or elsewhere.

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman makes a telling and important point. It was not made earlier, and I was trying to respond to the debate, but I shall respond to his point. The Government's position, which I understand to be shared by all the parties in Northern Ireland, is that the inability of the police and/or the judicial system to affect the behaviour of young people in some parts of Northern Ireland does not mean that those young people should be denied the opportunity to take advantage of restorative justice, if it can be made to work. I understand that to be the approach that has consistently been taken by all parties in Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is an argument that young people in Northern Ireland are more deserving of extra opportunities than those who live in societies with less trouble and conflict.
	The Bill's purpose is to create a framework in which restorative justice can be delivered without denying that there are serious challenges in doing so. The structure that has been created is designed to address those challenges. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) says that we have to ensure that nobody with a paramilitary background should be included. That might mean denying some young people access to their parents in a youth conference. If we are to deflect young people from taking the path that their parents have taken or prevent them from being dragged down that path by the parents of other children and other malign influences in the community, we must address these issues. We will do so not by saying that it is difficult but by engaging in constructive debate. We must try to address the difficulties and create an environment in which we can deliver the benefits of restorative justice to the people of Northern Ireland.
	We do not view the reform of the justice system as an issue that should divide the parties in this Chamber or in the community in Northern Ireland. It appears that the official Opposition are hell-bent on dividing the House for the sake of two recommendations out of 294. In the absence of any serious work by them on these issues, they have elevated those two recommendations into issues of principle on which they will oppose the whole Bill while constantly telling us, without giving any detail, that they accept many of the recommendations in the review and in the Bill.
	The vast bulk of material covered by the review and the Bill concerns the practical workings of justice. Getting it right is in everyone's interests. The tone of the debate has, in large measure, matched that of the recent consultation exercise. There have been issues of divisionsymbols are the most obvious and predictablebut I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was able to say that the Secretary of State's opening remarks were, to some degree, reassuring to her. We hope that we will be able to build on that in consultation with other parties in Northern Ireland.
	The fact that symbols are the most obvious and predictable issue on which there has been division should not hide the fact that on enormous parts of the Bill there is cross-community agreement in Northern Ireland. During consultation, we were struck by the real interest in and enthusiasm for the reform of criminal justice and by the steps that are necessary to bring the system closer to the people of Northern Ireland. We have taken note of that.
	In announcing the draft legislation and implementation plan, the Government set out their target for possible devolution of criminal justice functions after the Assembly elections in 2003. As the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, this is a challenging timetable. However, I sense in the House and more widely the commitment and good will that will make that possible. In many ways, today's debate reflected debate that we have had about the review's recommendations. The most encouraging feature is the support for the vast bulk of the Bill's key provisions.
	These reforms cannot happen overnight; it will be several years before they take full effect, but I am confident that once they have been fully implemented Northern Ireland will have a criminal justice system that can be measured against the best in the world.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 324.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Programming of proceedings

(2) All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

Proceedings in Standing Committee

(3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th February 2002.
	(4) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(5) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
	(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
	(7) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 136.

Question accordingly agreed to.

JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.[Mr. Woolas.]
	Question agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT BILL (PROGRAMME) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
	That the Order of 27th November 2001 (Employment Bill (Programme)) be amended by the substitution in paragraph 3 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) of the words 'at 11.25 a.m. on 24th January' for the words 'on 22nd January'.[Mr. Woolas.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Ordered,

Immigration and Asylum

That the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 4014), a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

National Health Service

That the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 4043), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Mr. Woolas.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Sixth Environmental Action Programme

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5771/01, a Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community: 'Europe 2010: Our future, Our choice', and a Proposal for a draft Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Environmental Action Programme 20012010; considers that co-ordinated action at a Community level is the most effective way of addressing the main environmental objectives of the programme; welcomes the strategic approach; agrees with the objectives, particularly the identification of the four priority areas; endorses the emphasis on climate change as an outstanding challenge of the next 10 years and beyond; supports the Government's efforts to ensure that policy is developed on the basis of full analysis of the issues with consideration of the full range of instruments; endorses the Government's position that the programme should be ambitious yet achievable, and that where analysis has not yet been completed detailed targets should be set out in thematic strategies to be developed later; and supports the Government's aim that the programme should give a clear steer on improved and consistent implementation and enforcement. [Mr. Woolas.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 30th January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall
	(i) put the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Blunkett relating to the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) no later than Seven o'clock; and
	(ii) put the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Byers relating to Local Government Finance (England) 200203 no later than Ten o'clock.[Mr. Woolas.]

RAGWORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Woolas.]

Richard Younger-Ross: We discover many things when researching for debates that we hope to instigate, and I came across a couple of surprising facts when researching for this debate. I was surprised to find, for instance, that the word quidditch in the Harry Potter bookwhich I had assumed to be made upclearly derives from the name of a place in Devon called Quoditch, where ragwort grows. I mention that because it allows me to give a plug. J. K. Rowling wrote a lot about places in Devon in her books, having studied at Exeter university. She referred to the Chudleigh Cannons, the premier quidditch team. Chudleigh is a town in my constituency, and we are proud to have the country's premier quidditch team.
	Our last debate on ragwort took place on 25 July 2000. It was initiated by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who pointed out that the debate was taking place on St James's day, and that St James's wort was another name for ragwort. It has other namesstaggerwort and, less pleasing, stinking willie and mare's fart.
	This debate takes place somewhat earlier than the last, which began at 3.21 am. The Minister will get home to his night-time cocoa, put on his jim-jams and get to bed a little earlier than he did on that occasion. Before he does, however, let me tell him a story. It concerns Georgina Norton, a nine-year-old girl who, like many nine-year-old girls, was fairly horse mad. She was lucky enough to own a pony called Topic. One day her mother went to turn Topic loose, but he appeared to have had a good night out: he was unco-ordinated, perhaps even appearing slightly drunk. They sent for the vet, blood tests were carried out, and it emerged that Topic had acute liver damage caused by ragwort. Topic had to be put down. Georgina said:
	Topic was my best friend, and I spent ages talking to him. When he died, it was the most awful time of my life and I still miss him.
	Topic was poisoned by ragwort.
	Ragwort is generally considered a biennial weed but in fact it is a facultative perennial. It grows to about 1 m in height. As most people will be aware, it is a yellow- flowered weed. As I am sure the Minister is aware, it will grow almost anywhere: on verges, embankments and waste land. It is highly toxic, particularly to horses. I understand that 2 lb of fresh ragwort is enough to kill a horse. It is also toxic to young stock, cattle, pigs and sheep. Of course, we do not tend to see the effects of ragwort on those animals because they are slaughtered early, whereas horses live to a ripe old age, so the effects of ragwort on them can be seen all too often.
	The symptoms are weight loss, poor coat, impaired vision, staggering and a changed gait. The horse will tend to circle, suffer blindness, and collide into other obstacles. It may be unable to swallow. Ultimately, the condition will lead to collapse and death.
	Ragwort weed is remarkable in other ways. It has unique wildlife which most people recognise: the cinnabar moth caterpillar with its rugby-top-like banding of black and gold and the cinnabar moth itself, with its dramatic red and black. Both are poisonous because they feed off the plant. That pretty plant and its insects are all deadly. That is due to the pyrrolizidine alkaloids.
	It is a difficult weed to remove. Usually in the United Kingdom, one would spot-spray the young rosettes in April to May. One can dig it up, but that is harder and obviously difficult when there is a large number of weeds.
	The biological experiments elsewhere were well covered in the previous debate, so I will not go into those. It is a pernicious weed. It is hard to remove and it is becoming more common. The question is: what should be done?
	In 1959, Parliament thought that it had the answer. It passed the Weeds Act 1959. It named ragwort and four other weeds: spear thistle, creeping or field thistle, curled dock and the broad-leaved dock. However, common ragwort is the most pernicious and dangerous of those and causes the most problems.
	I quote from the Act:
	Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food . . . is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land
	I emphasise any land
	he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading.
	So why is ragwort invading virtually every pasture and meadow still?
	The previous debate took place a year after Topic died. The Government have good intentions. I note a lot of what the Minister said in that debate. Baroness Hayman has been an active supporter of the root out ragwort week, but there are questions from that debate. I am pleased to see that the Minister present is the Minister who attended it, so he knows the topic well. He said:
	we are determined to root out injurious weeds wherever they may be found.
	He went on to say that the 1959 Act applies to Great Britain and empowers Agriculture Ministers to take action against occupiers of any land to prevent the spread of the five species of weed. He explained the scope of the Act and said that it
	empowers, but does not require.
	I take the point.
	The Minister also said:
	Commercial equine activities are a business and one which we embrace as a legitimate form of agricultural diversification, so it is not unreasonable for us to treat them as an agricultural business.
	What measures has he taken? Why were other parts of the horse industryliveryruled out? Was there one rule for one and one rule for the other? The horse industry is worth well over 2.5 billion.
	We now have the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is broader and more all-embracing than MAFF, and is meant to cover all the countryside. Should not DEFRA now say that it will look after the horse industry and take care of pernicious weeds?
	Has the Minister resolved the problem that he referred to when he said:
	we ensure that all complaints from farmers who have diversified into equine enterprises and to whom ragwort poses a threat are fully investigated?
	How many cases have been investigated?
	The Minister said:
	I urge those owners to follow the advice to ensure that any bought-in hay is warranted as free of ragwort before it is purchased.
	That is vital, but has the hon. Gentleman considered the plight of organic hay growers who cannot use spray? Imagine the difficulties of trying to remove the weed by hand from hundreds or thousands of acres. Surely it would be better if we could take more action to prevent the spread of the weed.
	The Minister said:
	It is in only a few cases that we may be forced to use the powers that we have under the Act.[Official Report, 25 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1089-92.]
	In a later written answer, he said:
	During 1998, staff at MAFF Regional Service Centres, acting on the Minister's behalf, served one notice under section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959; one notice was served in 1999; and one has been served so far this year; default powers were exercised last year in respect of the 1998 notice.[Official Report, 31 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 379W.]
	Why so few? That seems remarkably few, when the weed is so common.
	My securing this debate has raised a few eyebrows, as people have said to me, Isn't ragwort a pretty weed that grows in the hedgerows? It may be pretty, but it is dangerous. People do not realise that, apart from the risk to horses and livestock, there is a risk to human health. About 18 months ago, it was reported that a Tasmanian man who had been weeding ragwort by hand for about two weeks was taken seriously ill, and I am told that there is at least one other case of serious poisoning.
	Derek Knottenbelt, senior lecturer in veterinary science at the university of Liverpool, went out and removed ragwort by hand on the campus, then took a blood test two days later. He says that his liver enzymes were clearly elevated. I accept that that was not a scientific test, and there may have been other reasons for that, but it is indicative of the fact that ragwort has an effect on humans.
	That man went on to report that he had seen ragwort in a cornfield being harvested with the corn. May I remind the Minister that in 1995 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carried out research that showed that where bees had been in a field containing a lot of ragwort, the honey would be polluted with the alkaloids? I hope that the Minister will sleep well after this debate, but perhaps he should be careful about the bread and honey that he may eat in the morning, because it, too, may contain those alkaloids. I do not say that there is an immediate risk and we should all stop eating honey and bread, because that would be nonsense; I am simply pointing out that there is a growing risk, and the more the plant invades, the greater the risk will be.
	Derek Knottenbelt has said:
	It's a real killer and has got to be got rid of fast: every plant should be pulled out roots, boots and all.
	That is what I am asking the Minister to ensure happens.
	I started by talking about Georgina and her horse, and Derek Knottenbelt advises that up to 500 horses a year may die of ragwort poisoning. I do not knowand I am sure that the Minister does not know either, because when I asked the Department how many horses were affected by ragwort it could not give me an answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us further in his response tonight. However, documents from the British Horse Society report tragic cases of horses dying from ingesting the weed.
	Many people who are concerned about ragwort have written to me. I cannot quote all of them, but I shall give the last word to the National Farmers Union, because it clearly states what we all hope will happen:
	The NFU urges DEFRA to be more positive in its use of the Weeds Act so that effective action can be taken early, and over a number of seasons to control ragwort before it becomes an agricultural nuisance. This means the Highways Agency, highways authorities and Railtrack being particularly vigilant in relation to land in their responsibility. It means that each responsible public authority should have a specified contact point for weed problems that farmers can contact. Finally it means that authorities need to take early and regular action to control 'weed hotspots' so that the young plants are removed or killed before they become a problem.
	I hope that the Minister will heed those words, and that we shall hear a positive response this evening.

Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard YoungerRoss) on securing this debate about ragwort, which is indeed a serious issue, and one which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes seriously. He is right to say that at least we are having this debate at a more reasonable time than our previous debate on ragwort, which did indeed take place at 3 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)the latter is here again this eveningsat through that debate too.
	We put great emphasis on animal welfare in DEFRA. We are aware of the fatal consequences that may arise for animals as a result of eating ragwort, and we take seriously the powers available to the Secretary of State under the Weeds Act 1959.
	I would like to put on record my regret at hearing about the case of Topic, who was owned by the Norton family, and I appreciate the distress that the loss of their horse will have caused them. That is one of the reasons why ragwort needs to be taken seriously by all concerned. We will continue to treat each case on its merits and investigate complaints about ragwort where it threatens farmland, farming activities and diversified equine enterprises on farmland.
	I must be absolutely honest with the hon. Gentleman: my Department does not have the resources to investigate every complaint about ragwort on every piece of land. The 1959 Act was designed to protect agricultural premises. We have extended its application to embrace diversified equine enterprises on farmland, and that is the distinction between those enterprises and the others that the hon. Gentleman asked about. We are trying to be flexible about the application of the Act in line with the way in which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was set up, to take a more integrated approach towards countryside activities and businesses. The vast majority of complaints are resolved satisfactorily through co-operation and persuasion, without the formal powers of the 1959 Act being invoked.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what we have done since last year. We have taken a range of actions to deal with ragwort. I do not underestimate the difficulties or the scale of the problem because of the spread of the weed and the wide range of land on which it grows. In consultation with the Rural Development Service and the Rural Payments Agency, we have examined ways to improve the discharge of our responsibilities under the 1959 Act and to ensure an efficient and consistent approach.
	We recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that ragwort has environmental benefits. It supports a range of biodiversity, and that is important for the countryside in the right placeaway from livestock and horses.
	I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's points about human health. DEFRA and, I think, the Food Standards Agency have no evidence to suggest that there are dangers to human health either from direct exposure to ragwort or from consumption of meat or other products, including honey, from animals that have eaten ragwort.
	The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions last year produced a code of practice for verge maintenance which, following representations, specifically included control of ragwort. Railtrack has been made aware of the importance of the need to control ragwort. Last year, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foodwhich has since become DEFRAcommissioned Agricultural Development Advisory Service research projects on ragwort and its control, with particular reference to horses. It also provided a schedule of control measures, which DEFRA has already made publicly available and will put on its website.
	DEFRA has also produced a useful colour leaflet on the identification of ragwort and other injurious weeds. That is useful for those who are not familiar with ragwort and who may not be aware of the serious consequences that it can have for livestock. Information on that can also be found on the DEFRA website, and we are revising our leaflet on the 1959 Act.
	It is important to stress that responsibility for ragwort control lies on landowners, including in the provision of such things as hay. People making hay must take into account the fact that ragwort can be dangerous, and it is their responsibility to ensure that it is not in the hay. It is also important for owners to check as far as possible that hay is not contaminated. We recognise that the Government have some responsibility, but landowners and horse owners have responsibilities too.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister agree that when silage and hay are brought in, it is difficult to pull out all the weeds, even though the hay is sifted? Where the weed becomes more endemicalmost epidemicthat will become a greater problem. It is difficult for organic farmers to eradicate ragwort, and greater prevention to stop it spreading would be greatly appreciated. I understand what the Minister has said about some of the measures taken, but I hope that more pressure can be brought on such organisations as Railtrack, particularly when it comes to clearing verges that pass through agricultural land.

Elliot Morley: Yes, those are reasonable points, and I also accept that, of course, it is very difficult for horse owners to check through deliveries of hay to ensure that it has not been contaminated with ragwort, but it is important that those who are cropping hay or silage ensure that it is not contaminated in that way. I accept that there are challengesfor example, for organic farmsbut as I shall mention in moment, there are ways to deal with ragwort. We are trying to spread that information around by supporting the work of organisationsthe British Horse Society, the Country Landowners Association and the National Equine Welfare Councilthat have been active in promoting the awareness of ragwort contamination.
	I was pleased to give the opening speech at the National Equine Welfare Council seminar on ragwort in September last year. That useful forum brought together not only equine interests but countryside and environmental organisations, and a range of information was available on the various techniques to control ragwort in various ways and situations. It is important that such organisations spread that information around so that people are aware of best practice, and we are playing our part in DEFRA to make that information available.
	I accept that it is very difficult to deal with ragwort, and the Department finds doing so costly and time consuming. In the past year, the Department has been seriously distracted with the foot and mouth epidemic, which, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, has made it very difficult for us to give our full attention to such problems, but I assure him that we will continue to support bodies such as the National Equine Welfare Council, which does an excellent job in relation to this issue. Where appropriate, we will pursue complaints about ragwort, within our farmland and agricultural enterprise priorities, which can include equine activities. I also assure him that we shall continue, through our various agencies and Departments, to try to promote good practice in controlling the weed and, wherever possible, to try to disseminate that information.

Richard Younger-Ross: I appreciate the Minister's comments. This question was asked in the previous debate on ragwort, but is DEFRA considering any research programme on ragwort? Two years ago, the answer was negative, but having moved on two years, I hope that DEFRA has considered funding some research, especially into the equine side of the issue. Will he consider funding research into the possible risks to humans? It is a worldwide problem, so other people may be working on it elsewhere

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention should be just that, and the Minister has very little time left to reply.

Elliot Morley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am not aware of any current research into the effects on human health, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will check with my Department and tell him in writing what we know about the situation. I repeat that the Department has commissioned an ADAS research project on ragwort and its control, with particular reference to horses. We are funding research into the most efficient ways to control the weed, and I very much hope that that helps the livestock sector.
	Although I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty, costs and resource implications to DEFRA in relation to ragwort control, I want to assure him that we take it seriously, that we will continue to work with interested organisations on research and development, and that we will do what we can to play an appropriate role, alongside the responsibility of landowners and livestock owners, to minimise the risk to livestock that the weed presents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.